Bail granted where conspiracy is alleged but the specific killing act is attributed to a co-accused.

The complainant reported that her husband, Gangadhara, had gone missing on 27 September 2025 and was later reported dead in a road accident.

Suspecting foul play because her husband had suffered a stroke and could not ride a motorcycle, she lodged a complaint against an unknown person.

During the investigation, the petitioner, accused No. 4, and other accused were arrested; the prosecution alleged that they conspired to murder Gangadhara by throttling him.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 61(2), 137, 103(1) and 238 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

He argued that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and accused No. 3 had been granted bail.

The State opposed release, citing the seriousness of the charge and the risk of witness tampering.

Whether the petitioner, accused No. 4, should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the allegations and charge-sheet material.

Whether completion of the investigation, the petitioner’s period in custody, and the grant of bail to accused No. 3 supported the petitioner’s release on bail.

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 61(2), 137, 103(1) and 238 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court assessed the bail request in light of the nature of the allegations, the petitioner’s role and circumstances, and the fact that the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed.

No precedent was cited.

The charge-sheet material indicated an alleged conspiracy involving the petitioner and other accused, but the specific allegation that the deceased was throttled was directed at accused No. 1.

The Court also considered that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed, alongside the petitioner’s status and the circumstances of the offence.

On that basis, it found the case suitable for bail, notwithstanding the State’s objection that release could lead to witness tampering.

Bail was subject to a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; a prohibition on threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses; cooperation with the Investigating Officer until completion of the investigation; and a requirement not to involve himself in future offences.

The State may seek cancellation of bail in the event of a breach of the conditions.