Bail applications must consider the nature and severity of the offence, potential flight risk, and the likelihood of influencing witnesses, especially when based on circumstantial evidence.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri. Sandesh Chouta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Kirtilata Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and Sri. Srinand A. Pachhapure, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge them on bail in connection with Crime No.179 of 2024 of Malamaruthi Police Station, Belagavi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103 , 238, 61 read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in S.C. No.22 of 2025.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 09.10.2024, when the first informant (CW1 – daughter of the deceased) was in Bengaluru, she received a phone call from her brother, Akul – CW24, whereby she was informed that her father had a heart attack and thereafter, she contacted her mother (accused No.1), who confirmed the same and informed that he is no more. Hence, she came to Belagavi and attended cremation of her father. After cremation, CW1 attempted to view CCTV Footages to witness the last moments of her father. However, her mother convinced her not to see the footages and asked her to take bath first, as she had returned from crematorium. After a while, upon checking the footage, CW1 discovered that certain portions of the footage were deleted. Thus, she made an enquiry about the deleted footage with her brother, Sujal – CW25, and discovered the fact that his mother – accused No.1 had instructed to delete the footages. Hence, CW1 questioned her mother regarding the reason for deleting the CCTV footage and her mother informed her that her brother, Sujal, might have deleted the footage by mistake. However, upon repeated questioning, her mother informed her that CCTV footages were deliberately erased to prevent the trouble from relatives. CW1 further enquired with her brother, Akul, and discovered that a night before the alleged incident, her brother, Akul, was sleeping with his father (the deceased) and his mother – accused No.1 persuaded him to sleep in a different room with his brother, Sujal, and later, his mother took Sujal's phone and locked them in the bedroom. Thereafter, loud yelling sounds were heard from the father's room, he and his brother attempted to open the door, but it was locked. After a while, his mother opened the door, prompting them to quickly enter the room. Upon arrival, Akul noticed that his father's tongue was sticking out, and he attempted to offer some water, but his mother advised against it, stating that he should not be given water due to his intoxicated state.

4. It is further alleged in the complaint that, CW1's mother (accused No.1) was a close friend to a person named Shobitgouda (accused No.2), and the same had led to conflicts between the accused and the deceased. Further, a family member had intervened and resolved the issue. Despite the compromise, her mother tried to stay in touch with accused No.2. In the meanwhile, the deceased transferred ownership of two apartments back to his name, which had previously been registered in the name of accused No.1. Thus, she developed ill-will against the decided and hatched a plan with other accused persons to eliminate the deceased.

5. It is alleged that in view of the same, CW1 voiced her concerns with regard to her father's death to her uncle, Raju Dundappa – CW27. Therea