Bail may be granted where no eyewitness attributes an overt act to the accused.

The petitioner, Accused No. 5, sought regular bail in a case arising from Savalgi Police Station Crime No. 69/2026, registered for offences under Sections 61, 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 103(1), 326(f) and 238 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to kill the deceased, who was attacked near Kannolli Village bus stand on 20 April 2026; Accused Nos. 1–4 allegedly assaulted him with knives, and he died from his injuries.

The petitioner argued that no specific overt act was attributed to him and that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed.

The State opposed bail, relying on the gravity of the offence, alleged eyewitness evidence, and the risk of witness tampering.

Whether Accused No. 5 should be enlarged on regular bail, having regard to the allegations against him, the completed investigation and the circumstances of the case.

Whether the absence of a specific overt act attributed to the petitioner by the eyewitnesses, alongside the allegation of conspiracy and instigation, supported release on bail.

The petition was brought under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; the Court’s order records that it allowed the petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

In considering regular bail, the Court assessed the nature and gravity of the allegations, the severity of the potential punishment, the likelihood of absconding, the petitioner’s character and antecedents, and the risk of tampering with prosecution witnesses.

The offences alleged included murder under Section 103(1) BNS; the Court did not cite any precedent.

The Court noted that the charge-sheet alleged a conspiracy involving Accused Nos. 1–5, but attributed the physical assaults to Accused Nos. 1–4.

The eyewitnesses’ statements described those accused persons’ individual acts but did not attribute an overt act to the petitioner; the allegation against him was that he conspired and instigated.

Considering this distinction, the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, and the relevant bail factors, the Court concluded that the petitioner could be released subject to conditions.

The petitioner was directed not to threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses, to cooperate with the investigating officer, to attend court regularly, and not to engage in similar or other offences; breach of the conditions could result in an application for cancellation of bail.