Delay in trial can constitute a violation of personal liberty, justifying bail; absence of eyewitnesses necessitates careful consideration of circumstantial evidence.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

1. Heard Sri. Ashok R. Kalyanshetty, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

2. This petitioner/accused No.2 has filed this petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short,) for grant of regular bail in Crime No.112/2024 by Harugeri Police Station for offences punishable under Section s 143 , 147, 148, 120B, 364, 302 , 201 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) by accused No.2 (petitioner).

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

4. On 12.06.2024, the first informant lodged complaint alleging that she was married to Irappa Alagonda Chougala (victim) 12 years ago and both were residing at Sultanpur, with their three children and parents-in-law. The family was holding lands at Sultanpur. However, without any necessity, her brother-in-law Shrishail (accused No.1) expressed intention to sell 1 Acre of joint family property by claiming it to be necessary to meet family necessity. Same was opposed by her. This had led to altercation with Shrishail who threatened that even if it necessitated murder of Irappa Alagonda Chougala, he would achieve his objective. Due to threat, her husband had asked her to reside at her maternal home at Mugalkhod with children. Nevertheless, she used to visit her home every week, while victim stayed at Sultanpur.

5. It was further contended that, in order to prevent accused no.1 from selling land, Irappa Alagonda Chougala had filed suit before Civil Court at Raibag, which had further enraged petitioner and he frequently threatened to kill Irappa Alagonda Chougala. On 05.06.2024 in the morning her father-in-law called to enquire about victim, who went out of house at 10:00 pm previous day, had not returned and was missing and he was unable to contact him over phone. Thus, a missing complaint was lodged on 06.06.2024.

6. On the same day i.e. on 12.06.2024 at 5.00 p.m., when she was at Mugalkhod, Rajashekhar Balchandra Naik and her brother Mahantesh informed her that accused No.1 had confessed about committing a grave mistake and asked for saving him. On enquiry, accused No.1 had told about altercation with victim over sale of land and his refusal to consent for withdrawal of civil suit had got him angry and assuming his murder would yield him entire property, had given supari (contract) to Bharmappa Balappa Naik (accused No.2) for Rs.14 Lakhs for commission of murder of victim and at 9:30 p.m. on 04.06.2024, he along with Bharmappa and boys from Mudalagi village, kidnapped Irappa Alagonda Chougala in Innova vehicle, committed murder and disposed of his body in a river. But as he had given missing complaint to police, their frequent visits and enquiry had caused fear and therefore, accused intended to sell 1 Acre of land and give share to complainant and sought help to escape from police case. But, he was advised to surrender before police. Thus, accused No.1 had offered accused No.2 for Rs.14 Lakhs to murder of Irappa Alagonda Chougala and they along with boys from Mudalagi had kidnapped Irappa Alagonda Chougala, killed him and disposed of his body. Based on the complaint, Harugeri Police registered the case in Crime No.112/2024.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not involved in this case. There is no overtact against accused No.2. The only allegation is that this petitioner was engaged by accused No.1, in turn,