Bail granted where the fatal act was attributed to a co-accused and investigation was complete.

The petitioner, arrayed as accused No. 3, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from the death of Gangadhara.

The prosecution alleged that accused No. 1 throttled the deceased while accused Nos. 2 and 3 held his hands and legs, and that accused Nos. 4 and 5 had conspired with them to eliminate him.

The petitioner was arrested on 30 September 2025; after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and that the specific allegation of throttling was against accused No. 1. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s alleged participation, receipt of Rs. 30,000, and risk of witness tampering.

1. Whether the petitioner/accused No. 3 should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the charge-sheet material and circumstances of the alleged offence

2. Whether conditions could adequately address the State’s concern that the petitioner might threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant bail.

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

The Court considered the charge-sheet material, the nature and particularised role alleged against the petitioner, the circumstances of the offence, and the completion of the investigation in deciding whether bail was appropriate.

The charge-sheet alleged that the petitioner helped restrain the deceased while accused No. 1 throttled him. The Court noted that the specific allegation of throttling was directed at accused No. 1, and considered that the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed.

Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the petitioner’s circumstances and the completion of the investigation, the Court found the case fit for bail. It addressed the State’s concern about interference with witnesses through conditions prohibiting threats or tampering and requiring periodic attendance before the police.

Breach of the conditions may be a ground to seek cancellation of bail.