Bail may be granted if there are insufficient grounds for custodial interrogation, particularly after a charge sheet is filed and no serious overt acts are alleged against the accused.

ORDER :

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.

Crl.P.No.17395/2025 is filed by accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.16265/2025 is filed by accused No.2. Both the petitions are filed under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Cr.No.84/2025 of M.K.Doddi Police Station, registered for offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238, 190 of BNS, pending in S.C.No.102/2025 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagar.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1, learned Senior counsel for petitioner/accused No.2 and learned Additional SPP for respondent/State.

3. Learned counsel for accused No.1 would contend that deceased died on 24.06.2025 and UDR complaint has been filed. Subsequently, father of the deceased has filed a complaint on 24.07.2025 and the same has been registered in Cr.No.84/2025 against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2. There is no role of these petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in commission of murder of the deceased. The allegation against accused No.1 and accused No. 2 is conspiring to kill the deceased. Accused No.7 has been granted bail. The deceased was pressuring accused No.1 to sell her property and therefore, she conspired with accused No.2 with whom she had illicit relationship. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 engaged accused No.3 to kill the deceased. Accused Nos.3 to 6 took deceased in a car and made him to consume poison and committed his murder. The charge sheet has been filed and therefore, petitioner/accused No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of accused No.1. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner/accused No.2 would contend that the only allegation against petitioner/accused No.2 is conspiring to kill the deceased with accused No.1. The petitioner has been arrayed as accused only based on confessional statement. There is no overt act against this petitioner/accused No.2. Since the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, Learned Addl.SPP would contend that accused Nos.1 and 2 were having illicit relationship. The deceased who had incurred debts was insisting accused No.1 to sell her property to pay off the debts. Therefore, accused No.1 conspired with accused No.2 to kill the deceased and they engaged accused No.3. Accused Nos.3 to 6 took the deceased in a car, made him to consume poison and committed his murder. Accused Nos.1 and 2 gave supari of Rs.4,00,000/- out of agreed amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to accused No.3. There is a prima-facie case against the petitioners for the offences alleged against them. With this, he prayed to reject the petitions.

6. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

7. This Court while granting bail to accused No.7 in Crl.P.No.14587/2025 in the order dated 19.11.2025 has observed as under:

“The case of the prosecution is that, accused No.1 is the wife of deceased and she is having extra marital affair with accused No.2. The deceased who was husband of accused No.1 was intending to sell his property. Therefore, accused No.1 intimated the same to accused No.2 and they conspired to kill the deceased along with other accused. The petitioner and accused No.2 have intimated the movement of deceased to accused Nos.3 to 6 and accused Nos.3 to 6 have made the deceased to consume poison forcibly and committed his murder. Considering the above aspect, the overtact is alleged against the petitioner is conspiracy and intimating the movement of deceased to accused Nos.3 to 6. No serious overt acts are alleged against this petition