Anticipatory bail is warranted where no direct involvement or overt act is shown.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 23/2026 of Siddapura Police Station, registered for offences under Sections 189(2), 191(3), 103, 109(1), 118(2), 329(4), 351(2), 54 and 61 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that, at the request of accused No. 3, the petitioner sent persons who subsequently went to the deceased’s house and committed murder.

The petitioner denied direct involvement and sought bail; the State opposed the petition.

The order refers to the petitioner inconsistently as accused Nos. 8 and 9.

Whether the material in the complaint and charge-sheet disclosed a sufficient prima facie connection between the petitioner and the alleged offences to deny anticipatory bail.

Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail, and, if so, on what conditions.

The petition was considered under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides for anticipatory bail.

The alleged offences were stated to arise under the specified provisions of the BNS.

The Court applied the principles governing anticipatory bail by assessing the alleged role of the petitioner and the material connecting him to the offence; it cited no precedent.

The Court found no material in the complaint indicating the petitioner’s role or connection with the alleged crime.

The prosecution’s case against him rested on the allegation that accused No. 3 asked him to send persons, and that he did so; the Court considered this allegation, and the absence of material showing direct involvement, insufficient at this stage to refuse bail.

It also noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 9 February 2026, although the petition sought anticipatory bail.

Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court concluded that bail was warranted subject to conditions.

Conditions included remaining within the trial court’s jurisdiction without prior permission, not tampering with or threatening witnesses, and attending court regularly; breach could entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.