The absence of direct evidence against an accused in serious allegations can justify granting bail under stringent conditions.

HARIHAR Location: High Court of THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C.

Karnataka , Dharwad (U/S 483 OF BNSS , 2023) SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE ABOVE Bench SAID PETITIONER OR ACCUSED NO.10 ON BAIL IN HANGAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO.289/2024, ALLEGING U/S.189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 103(1), 133, 74, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 49, 190 OF BNS IN C.C NO.355/2025, ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HANGAL NOW PENDING IN S.C. NO.37/2025 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT HAVERI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri.L.S.Sullad., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Abhishek Malipatil., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State.

2. The petitioner/accused No.10 has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, [483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023] praying to grant bail in S.C.No.37/2025, pending on the file of learned 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in connection with Hangal P.S. Crime No.289/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 103(1), 133, 74, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 49 read with Section 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS, 2023’).

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under;

On 26.12.2024 in between 01:00 p.m and 02:00 p.m, accused Nos.1 to 9 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in order to assault the Prakash S/o Laxman Olekar, who is none other than the brother of first informant, as he was having illicit relationship with one Rekha. Hence, all the accused persons tied the Prakash to electric pole, set fire and also assaulted him with clubs and committed murder. Hence, the first informant lodged complaint, which led to registration of FIR and investigation.

4. During the course of investigation, the name of petitioner/accused No.10 is revealed by witnesses and hence, he was arrested by the respondent/police, and in turn remanded to judicial custody.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the case, there is no overt-act alleged against him and nothing is recovered from this petitioner; the only allegation is that this petitioner was the instigator to the crime. However, his name is not found place in the FIR, and material eye witnesses have not stated in their statements recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is ready to abide by the condition to be imposed by this Court. With these grounds, he prayed for allowing the petition.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the petitioner is involved in the offence under Section 302 of IPC, there is prima-facie case against him, if he is released on bail, he may tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. Thus, considering the nature and gravity of offence, petitioner is not entitled for bail, hence, prayed for rejection of the petition.

7. Perused the material available on record.

8. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation has filed the charge-sheet. From perusal of the complaint and FIR, nowhere the name of this petitioner/accused No.10 is found place. Later during course of investigation, the witnesses have revealed his name as he was the instigator in commission of the offence.

9. Upon perusal of the statements of eye witnesses to the incident i.e., Fakkirappa Walikar and Smt. Jayamma @ Jaya W/o Prakash Olekar, they have not stated the name of present petitioner and his individual overt act in the crime. Whether petitio