The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance individual liberty with achieving justice, especially when considering bail in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

K.S. Mudagal, J. - Aggrieved by the rejection of his bail application, accused No. 4 in Spl. Case No. 65/2021 on the file of the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya has preferred the above appeal.

2. The appellant and 5 others are facing trial in Spl. Case No. 65/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 143, 120B, 302, 201 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 ('SC/ST Act' for short) on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by respondent No. 1 Police in Crime No. 1/2021 of their Police station.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

That due to quarrel between the mother of deceased Ravindra and the sister in law of accused No. 1, sister in law of accused No. 1 committed suicide. Deceased Ravindra and his mother were prosecuted in the said case and they were acquitted. Accused No. 2 and appellant had ill will against Ravindra regarding contracts in building construction works. Therefore, accused Nos. 1, 2 and appellant conspired to commit murder of Ravindra. For that purpose, they hired accused Nos. 2, 3, 6 and juvenile conflict in law. In execution of such conspiracy, on 02.01.2021 at about 9.30 a.m. accused Nos. 2, 3, 6 and juvenile conflict in law assaulted Ravindra near his land in Navile village of Maddur Taluk with iron rod, stone and committed his murder. To screen the evidence of offence, the accused tied a stone to the dead body and dropped that in Shimsha river.

4. On finding the dead body, wife of Ravindra filed complaint against 9 persons. The Investigating Officer filed 'B' report in respect of accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 shown in the FIR. In the FIR appellant was shown as accused No. 6. The appellant was arrested on 06.01.2021 and he is in judicial custody.

5. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected his bail application on the following grounds:

i) The offence alleged against the appellant is heinous one;

ii) There is prima facie case against the appellant;

iii) The case is still at the stage of trial, if bail is granted he is likely to tamper the witnesses.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case is based purely on circumstantial evidence, even those circumstances are very weak. He submits that as per the charge sheet records themselves, the appellant also belongs to Scheduled Caste, therefore, Section 3 of the SC/ST Act is not applicable. He further submits that the appellant is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

7. Sri V.S. Hegde, learned SPP-II and Sri Roshan H.C., learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submit that the allegations against the appellant are heinous and there is prima facie material against the appellant to show his involvement in the crime. They further submit that having regard to the gravity of the offence and the material on record, the trial Court has rightly rejected the bail petition and that does not warrant interference by this Court.

8. In support of his submissions, learned SPP II relies on the judgment in Hariram Bhambhi vs. Satyanarayan and another Crl.A. No. 1278/2021 (D.D. 29.10.2021) with regard to the principles for grant of bail. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court extracted its earlier judgment in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana [(2021) 6 SCC 230]. As per the said judgment, the factors to be considered while passing the bail order are as follows:

i) the facts of the case;

ii) the nature of allegations;

iii) gravity of offences and

iv) role attributed to the accused.

9. The facts of the case are already narrated above. As per the charge sheet records themselves, the appellant was not the actual assailant. He was only a conspirator. Admittedly there are no direct witnesses to the case. The circumstance relied on by the prosecution are:

i) There was motive for the appellant for commission of murder;

ii) The appellant was last seen with accused No. 2;

ii