Court granted bail based on weak evidence against the accused and absence in FIR, emphasizing the importance of evaluating all relevant factors for bail applications.

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

Heard Sri.Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Kirtilata Patil, learned HCGP for respondent-State.

2. The petitioner-accused No.9 has filed this petition under Section 483 of BNS S-2023 (439 of Cr.P.C.) to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.61/2024 (S.C.No.5002/2025 pending on the file of 7^th Addl. District and Sessions Judge Belagavi sitting at Chikkodi) of Nippani Police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 61(2)(A), 103, 238, 190, 49 R/W 3(5) of of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNS , 2023’).

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: On 02.10.2024 at around 08:20 p.m., near Jalakumba, Nippani, while the first informant, his brother, and others were gathered to prepare for the birthday celebration of their friend Ayaz Hasan Exambe (CW-22), accused Nos.1 to 5 and others formed an unlawful assembly. In furtherance of their common object, held with deadly weapons to quarrel with the first informant, his brother and others with an intention to cause murder, thereby assaulted the first informant, his brother and friend Praveen on head. Thereby committed the murder of Ashraf Ali (brother of the first informant), who succumbed to the injuries at hospital. Hence, first informant lodged a complaint and this led to registration of FIR and initiation of investigation.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner–accused No.9 has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent. The petitioner’s name does not appear in the First Information Report, and none of the eyewitnesses to the incident have mentioned the name of the petitioner. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. It is further submitted that the petitioner is employed as an insurance agent with Bajaj Finance and is willing to comply with any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel prays for grant of bail.

5. Per contra, the learned HCGP opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. There is prima facie material indicating the petitioner’s involvement. The alleged offence stems from a rivalry between two groups, which led to the murder of Ashraf Ali, who was the brother of the first informant. The prosecution further submits that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and obstruct the investigation. Accordingly, the learned HCGP prays for dismissal of the bail petition.

6. Perused the materials available on record.

According to the charge sheet, the allegations are specifically directed against accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7, who are said to have assaulted the deceased, Ashraf Ali, with a talwar, causing grievous injuries, which led to his death. The charge sheet further reveals that accused Nos.6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 were merely present at the scene of offence and were watching the incident. At this stage, prima facie, the offence under Section 302 IPC does not appear to be attracted against accused No.9. Moreover, the investigation is now complete, and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted, especially since his name does not feature in the FIR or in the statements of CWs.1, 10, and 15 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate. It is also noted that the petitioner is not a habitual offender, and no recovery has been made at his instance by the Investigating Officer.

7. It is a well-settled principle of law that, while considering a bail application, the Court must evaluate the nature and gravity of the offence, the circumstances under which it was