Bail granted where completed investigation disclosed insufficient prima facie material linking the accused to the murder conspiracy.

Crime No. 9/2026 was registered after Yogesh M.N. was murdered on 16 January 2026.

The prosecution alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 5 assaulted Yogesh in a cowshed, while accused No. 2 (Prathiba) shut and held the door to prevent others from entering; accused No. 4 (Darshan), who was not at the scene, was alleged to have conspired with the other family members.

The case arose amid a serious civil dispute between family members.

After the petitioners’ bail applications were rejected by the Sessions Court, they sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The investigation was complete and a charge sheet had been filed against nine persons.

1. Whether accused No. 4 was entitled to regular bail where he was not present at the crime scene and the material did not prima facie establish his alleged participation in the conspiracy.

2. Whether accused No. 2 was entitled to regular bail in light of the eyewitness accounts alleging that she prevented others from entering the cowshed during the assault.

The petitions were considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for the High Court’s power to grant bail.

The Court assessed the petitioners’ individual roles and the material collected during investigation, including whether the alleged conspiracy was prima facie supported and whether the allegations against each petitioner warranted continued custody.

No judicial precedents were cited in the order.

The Court distinguished between the petitioners’ alleged roles.

It noted that accused No. 2 was alleged by eyewitnesses to have closed and held the cowshed door while the assault occurred, and that the witnesses described the accused persons’ presence and conduct around the incident.

By contrast, accused No. 4 was not present at the scene, and the Court found that the prosecution had not collected sufficient material to prima facie demonstrate his alleged conspiracy with the other accused.

Given that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet filed, the Court found bail justified for accused No. 4, but not for accused No. 2.

Darshan, accused No. 4, was ordered to be released on bail subject to a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, regular attendance at trial, non-interference with witnesses, refraining from similar offences, and not leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission.