JUDGMENT

K. Natarajan, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No. 10 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No. 38/2022 registered by Belagavi Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302, 109, 201, 213 read with 149 of IPC pending in C.C. No. 278/2022 on the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi and in S.C. No. 138/2022 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of the alleged third wife of deceased Raju Doddabommanavar who filed complaint to the police on 15.03.2022 alleging that her husband was found murdered by some unknown persons for the unknown reasons, the police registered the case for the aforesaid offences. During investigation, the accused persons are said to be remanded to judicial custody. After investigation, it is revealed that the deceased Raju Doddabommanavar said to be married accused No. 1 who is said to be his second wife. He also his having the first wife. During the subsistence of two marriages, he also married third wife and was living with her. It is also alleged that accused Nos. 2 and 3 said to be invested some amount to the deceased in the real estate business but the deceased cheated them. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 conspired to commit the murder of the deceased. Accordingly, they consulted accused Nos. 4 and 5 and they said to be introduced accused No. 11 who is said to be a contract killer. Accordingly, accused No. 11 said to be agreed to murder the deceased for Rs. 10.00 lakhs as supari and accused Nos. 1 and 2 said to be paid advance amount for committing murder of the deceased. It is further alleged that accused Nos. 9 and 11 said to be approached the petitioner seeking legal help that in case accused Nos. 9 and 11 would be arrested, the petitioner should help them to come out on bail. The petitioner agreed to help accused Nos. 9 and 11. Subsequently, on 15.03.2022, accused Nos. 7 to 9 said to be committed murder of the deceased and the police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. The bail application of the petitioner came to be withdrawn on the previous occasion. Hence, this petition is filed on the additional grounds.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the alleged offence against the petitioner would attract Sections 212 and 213 of IPC, which is bailable in nature and there is no allegation against the petitioner of having committed or participated in the commission of murder. The petitioner undertook to help accused No. 11 if he was arrested by the police in the crime. The learned Senior counsel further contended that the alleged offence is bailable in nature punishable for five years and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of bail. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rasiklal vs. Kishore reported in (2009) 4 SCC 446.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has seriously objected for the bail and contended that the petitioner ought to have intimated the police about the accused persons committing the murder of the deceased, but he has not informed the police and even the petitioner is said to have harboured the accused persons in the commission of murder. Therefore, Sections 212 and 213 of IPC is not attracted and therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.

7. The main allegation goes against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and they had conspired to commit murder of the deceased Raju Doddabommanavar. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 said to be approached accused Nos. 4 and 5 for assistance to commit murder. Therefore, accused Nos. 4 and 5 said to be introduced accused No. 11, who is said to be the contract killer. Accordingly, accused No. 11 agreed to commit t