Attempt-to-murder ingredients were not prima facie made out against alleged conspirator; bail granted.

The petitioner, arrayed as accused No. 4, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), in Crime No. 98/2026 of Murudeshwar Police Station.

The case arose from an alleged incident in which accused Nos. 1 to 3 assaulted and attempted to kill Raju Naik and threatened the complainant’s family.

The allegation against the petitioner was that he had paid supari to accused Nos. 1 to 3 to eliminate Raju Naik and had conspired with them.

The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

He argued that the allegations primarily concerned accused Nos. 1 to 3, that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had been granted bail, and that he was entitled to bail on parity; the State opposed bail, citing the alleged conspiracy and risk of interference with the investigation and witnesses.

1. Whether the petitioner, accused No. 4, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the material on record.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on parity with accused Nos. 2 and 3, who had already been released on bail.

Section 483 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

In considering bail, the Court assessed the nature and gravity of the allegations, the severity of the potential punishment, the possibility of absconding, the accused’s character and antecedents, and the risk of witness tampering.

The charged provisions included Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126, 351(2), 352 and 61(2), read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The Court also considered parity with accused Nos. 2 and 3, who had been granted bail.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court found that the allegations of assault and attempted murder were directed principally at accused Nos. 1 to 3, while the allegation against the petitioner was that he had arranged the supari and participated in a conspiracy.

It observed that none of the witnesses had sustained injuries and concluded that, at that stage, the ingredients of the offence under Section 109 of the BNS were prima facie not made out against the petitioner.

Since accused Nos. 2 and 3 had already been granted bail, the Court also treated parity as supporting the petitioner’s release.

It considered the relevant bail factors and found that bail could be granted subject to conditions.

Conditions included appearing at hearings, not tampering with or threatening prosecution witnesses, cooperating with the investigation, not involving himself in similar offences, and reporting to the police every fortnight for six months or until the final report was filed, whichever occurred earlier.

The Court stated that breach of the conditions could permit the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail and that its observations were confined to disposal of the petition.