The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of circumstantial evidence, dying declaration, and the nature of injuries in deciding the validity of a bail application in a case involving offences under IPC and SC & ST (POA) Act.

Headnote:
Bail Application - Offences under IPC and SC & ST (POA) Act - Sec. 302, Sec. 34, Sec. 3(2)(va) - The court discussed the validity of the bail application filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in relation to the offences punishable under Sec. 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court considered the circumstantial evidence, dying declaration, and the nature of injuries to make its decision. The court found valid grounds for setting aside the impugned order and granting bail to the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2, subject to certain terms and conditions.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved the accused demanding repayment of advanced money from the deceased, leading to an assault resulting in the deceased's death. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, dying declaration, and the nature of injuries to support its case.
Finding of the Court:

The court found valid grounds for setting aside the impugned order and granting bail to the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2, subject to certain terms and conditions.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the bail application, reliance on circumstantial evidence and dying declaration, and the nature of injuries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the circumstantial evidence, dying declaration, and the nature of injuries to make its decision on the bail application.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. Appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 were ordered to be released on bail, subject to specified conditions.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 challenging the order dtd. 20/4/2022 passed in Spl.C . No.24/2022 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, whereunder the bail application of the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 sought in Crime No.6/2022 of Lokapur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sec. 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for brevity) and Sec. 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention o f Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC & ST (POA) Act' , for brevity), came to be rejected.

2. ***

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State . Inspite of service of notice , respondent No .2 has not appeared either in person or through counsel.

4. The case of the prosecution is that, one Subhash has lodged the complaint on 12 .01.2022 at 14.30 hours stating that accused No .1 is a sugarcane cutting gangman, accused No.2 is the brother and accused No.3 is his nephew. About two years back, deceased had taken advance of Rs.1 ,60,000.00 from accused No .1 stating that he will engage himself in his sugarcane cutting gang, but he did not attended the work nor repaid the advance amount. Thereafter, in the year 2021-22 the complainant, his wife and the deceased along with CW-10 and 11 were working in the sugarcane cutting gang of accused No.1 by putting a shed in the land bearing R.S. No .20 belonging to CW-15 . During this period, accused No .1 demanded the deceased to repay the advance amount but the deceased went on postponing the same stating that he will refund by working in his gang. That on 11.01 .2022 at about 11.00 p.m., in the land bearing survey No .17 belonging to CW-15 situated at Laxanatti village within the jurisdiction of Lokapur Police Station, all the accused and deceased were talking each other , at that time , accused No.1 demanded the deceased to repay the advance amount, for which, the deceased stated that he will not repay the amount, getting enraged by the same , accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with a stick lying over there , accused No .2 assaulted with the sugarcane and accused No.3 assaulted with hands and thereafter, they took the in jured in a tractor and laid him near his shed and on the same day he died at about 1.05 a.m. The father of the deceased who heard noise of his son near the shed, he along with his wife went outside and found his son lying with in juries. The father o f the deceased saw accused No.1 nearby and asked accused No.1 , but he ran away stating that he did not assault. The inured was not in a position to talk, he asked for water , with difficulty he in formed that the accused have assaulted him as he did not returned the money and a fter sometime he died. The Investigating O f ficer a fter completing investigation has filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 read with 34 of IPC and Sec. 3(2)(va) of SC and ST(POA) Act. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed bail application in Spl.C .No .24/2022 and the same came to be re jected by the impugned order dated 20 .04.2022. The appellants have challenged the said order in the instant appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 would contend that the alleged incident has occurred on 11/1/2022 at about 11.00 p.m and the complaint came to be filed in next day at 2.30 p.m. and there is a delay in filing the complaint. Accused No.3 who is similarly placed to that o f appellants, has been granted bail by the Trial Court. There are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence . The case of t he prosecution is based on dying declaration, made by the deceased before his father, mother, CWs-10 and 12. The in juries noted by the doctor are all contusion injuries as per the case of the prosecution itself there is no preparation,