The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the purpose of bail as securing presence during trial, allowing bail due to insufficient evidence against the petitioners.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)

This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (‘ BNS S ’ for short) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.192/2024 by Hospet Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Section 103(1) read with Sections 54 , 49 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (‘ BNS ’ for short) by accused no.3 and 4.

2. Sri Akshaya A. Katti, learned counsel for petitioners submitted case of prosecution was based on complaint filed by Mylarappa on 09.09.2024 stating that his daughter Shruthi (victim) was married to Ramalingappa Meti and since three months, Ramalingappa was assaulting victim on instigation of his mother-Sharanamma and petitioners-Devirappa and Nagamma who were maternal uncle and aunt of Ramlingappa, doubting her chastity. It was further stated that on 09.09.2024 at 1:30 a.m., Ramalingappa by doubting chastity of his wife had killed her by strangulation in their bedroom. It was alleged that murder was due to instigation by petitioners and accused no.2 and therefore had sought to take action. Based on complaint, Crime no.19/2024 was registered by Hospet Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Section 103(1) read with Sections 54 , 49 and Section 3(5) of BNS .

3. It was submitted, petitioners were arrested on 09.09.2024 and were in custody since then. It was submitted that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was already filed on 16.11.2024 wherein, prosecution claimed to be relying upon evidence of 41 witnesses. It was firstly submitted, only averment in complaint implicating petitioners was about instigation by petitioners suspecting chastity of victim and which is alleged to have instigated accused no.1 to murder his wife. It was submitted, neither complaint averments nor any material collected by prosecution during course of investigation was of such nature as to substantiate instigation that would have led accused no.1 to murder his wife. It was submitted, petitioners were residing separately than accused no.1. They were having movable and immovable properties, were permanent residents of Gadiganooru village earning their livelihood by doing coolie work. There were no criminal antecedents and were falsely implicated. It was submitted, since charge-sheet was already filed and petitioners were in custody since 09.09.2024, conclusion of trial was likely to be delayed. It was further submitted that rejection of bail petition by learned District Judge was only on ground that offences alleged were heinous which was not appropriate. On above grounds, sought to allow petition.

4. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent-State sought to oppose petition. It was at outset submitted, offences alleged against accused were grave and heinous. It was submitted, as per complaint averments and material collected during course of investigation, at instigation of accused no.3 and 4 (petitioners herein) heinous offence of murder was committed by accused no.1. Only motive for murder being suspicion of character which was at instance of petitioners herein, provisions of Sections 49 and 3(5) of BNS were invoked. It was submitted, post-mortem examination report indicated that death of victim was due to strangulation in matrimonial home. Same would clearly implicate accused. On said grounds, sought for rejection of petition.

5. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record.

6. From above, point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether petitioners are entitled for regular bail with conditions?”

7. This petition is for regular bail filed by accused no.3 and 4 in Crime no.192/2024 for offences punishable under Section 103(1) read with Sections 54 , 49 and 3(5) of BNS . Offence under Section 103 of BNS is punishable with death or imprisonment for life whereas, offence under Section 54 of BNS is same as principal offence but charged only against accused no.2 while Section 49 of BNS , instigation, would also carry same