The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence, witness statements, and seized articles to establish the petitioner's involvement in the conspiracy and murder.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused No. 2 in Crime No. 191/2021 of Gowribidanur Rural Police Station, Chickballapura District, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC.

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

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that accused No. 1 married C.W.17; 5 to 6 years ago, they lived together for a period of one year. Thereafter, accused No. 1 left the matrimonial home and she was staying in her parental house. It is an allegation that she has developed the illicit relationship with accused No. 2 and she used to take him to Andhra Pradesh. It is also an allegation that apart from her illicit relationship with accused No. 2, she is having an illicit relationship with her distant relative i.e., the brother of C.W.22. When accused No. 2 came to know about the same, instructed accused No. 1 not to talk with him. That on 03.08.2021, accused No. 2 went to the native village of accused No. 1, insisted C.W.25 and her husband to send accused No. 2 along with him. Both of them stayed in the garden land of C.W.18 and they were residing along with CWs.15 and 16. Thereafter, stayed at Yelahanka in the house of C.W.7 and also staying in Yelahanka Railway Station. Accused No. 1 was having contact with other person, he used to assault accused No. 1. Hence, accused Nos. 1 and 2, both of them conspired with each other to eliminate the said victim. That on 02.08.2021, accused No. 1 secured the victim to Gowribidanur. Accused No. 2 was not met accused No. 1. Hence, collecting the amount from C.W.24 took him to Yelahanka. That on 22.08.2021, accused No. 1 called accused No. 2 and expressed that he did not meet her and could not eliminate him and planned to eliminate him on 03.08.2021. Accused No. 1 again went to Gowribidanuru and took the victim to Vidhuraswattha Railway Station and telling that he is going to attend the nature call, called accused No. 2 and he came with Chilly Powder, rope and also with alcohol and made him to drink the alcohol and committed the murder by using the rope and left the body at the spot. The deceased mobile phone was also destroyed and accused No. 1 dropped the stone on the face of the victim and accused No. 2 kept the rope under the bush.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the case is rests upon the circumstantial evidence and no eye witnesses and only the mobile backside cap as well as the battery was seized. In order to connect the petitioner has committed an offence along with accused No. 1 and no material has been collected. The learned counsel also would submit that this petitioner is in the custody from the date of arrest and no need of further custodial trial. The learned counsel also would submit that at the first instance UDR was registered. Subsequently, an FIR was also registered against unknown persons. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that CWs.7 and 10 found the deceased and accused No. 1, who have travelled to Bengaluru, accused No. 2 purchased the rope from the shop of C.W.22; Chilly Powder was purchased from the shop of C.W.21. The Chilly Powder was also found at the spot, where they have committed the murder and the tetra packets which have been purchased from the shop of C.W.20 was also found at the spot. The stained rope was also seized. Accused No. 1 clothes was also stained with blood, the same was also seized. CWs.6 to 15 found the deceased and accused No. 1 getting down from the train. Apart from that, the conversation between accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 was collected during the course of investigation by collecting the CDRs. Hence, there are sufficient materials against the petitioner that he has comm