The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sufficient material to establish a prima facie case for conspiracy and the inadmissibility of voluntary statements as evidence.

JUDGMENT

Mohammad Nawaz, J. - This appeal is preferred by accused No. 9 in Spl.S.C. No. 12/2018 pending on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions and Special Judge at Dharwad, arising out of Cr. No. 7/2018 of Keshawapur police station, Hubballi.

2. The appellant has sought to set aside the order dated 08.12.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting his bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and consequently, to enlarge him on bail.

3. Charge-sheet has been filed against accused Nos. 1 to 11 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 109, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.

4. Heard Shri Ravi B. Naik, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State and perused the material on record.

5. Respondent No. 2/first informant has been served, but there is no representation.

6. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos. 8 and 9 conspired with other accused to commit the murder of one Kumareshwar Pille by giving Supari of Rs. 30,00,000/- and in furtherance of the conspiracy entered between the accused persons, on 25.01.2018 at about 8.30 p.m., when the deceased was proceeding on his two wheeler bearing registration No. KA-25/ES-3035, accused persons namely accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 came in a car bearing registration No. KA-18/E-9313, driven by accused No. 1 and hit the motorcycle ridden by the deceased from its back and made the deceased to fall and then assaulted him with lethal weapons all over his body and committed his murder. Thereafter, they threw the weapons in the Tungabhadra river and Navalgund Bennihalla water and concealed 3 country made pistols and 8 live bullets as well as the car and the two wheeler of the deceased.

7. Motive for the commission of the murder is that, on 06.04.2016, son of the deceased by name Vinayaka Pille was murdered and in that connection, a case was registered against 8 persons including the appellant herein who was arraigned as accused No. 2. The deceased in the present case was opposing the bail. Hence, it is alleged that the appellant as well as accused No. 8 who were in judicial custody in the said case were nurturing ill-will against the deceased as they were unable to get the bail and therefore, by giving Supari, they conspired with other accused persons to commit the murder of Kumareshwar Pille.

8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that there is absolutely no material against the appellant to connect him with the alleged crime, as admittedly, he was in the prison at the time of commission of offence. He contends that even though it is alleged that a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- was given as Supari, no amount has been recovered. He contends that in Special Case No. 25/2016 in respect of the murder of Vinayaka Pille, the trial Court has acquitted all the accused persons vide judgment dated 28.10.2021. He contends that even in the instant case, the witnesses who are examined including the complainant, i.e., the son of deceased, has turned hostile. He submits that the appellant is in judicial custody from 10.04.2016 and in the present case, he was taken into custody on body warrant on 19.03.2018. He submits that the appellant is ready to abide by any reasonable condition and he will regularly appear before the trial Court without fail and cooperate for the early disposal of the case.

9. The learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that CWs-19 to 22 are the eyewitnesses to the incident and their evidence is yet to be recorded and therefore, contends that in the event of grant of bail to the appellant, there are chances of tampering the witnesses and hampering the case of prosecution. He contends that the appellant along with accused No. 8 conspired with the other accused persons and gave Supari to them to