Bail was granted to accused present at the scene without specific allegations of assault.

Facts

The prosecution alleged that, following a family dispute involving accused Nos. 1 and 3, other accused were arranged to prevent a daughter from visiting her father.

Source reference: p. 5–6

In the course of the incident, the complainant’s husband, Vasanth Nayak, was killed.

Source reference: p. 5–6

The petitioners were accused Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 and sought regular bail in connection with Crime No. 23/2026.

Source reference: p. 6–8

The prosecution case rested on eyewitness accounts; the charge-sheet had been filed.

Source reference: p. 6–8

The High Court considered the petitions together.

Source reference: p. 5

Issues

Whether accused No. 5 should be enlarged on regular bail in light of the eyewitness evidence attributing the fatal stabbing to him

Source reference: p. 8–9

Whether accused Nos. 4, 6 and 7 should be enlarged on regular bail where the material described them as present at the scene but attributed no individual overt act to them

Source reference: p. 8–9

Law Applied

The petitions were brought under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Source reference: p. 2–4

The Court assessed the material then available, including eyewitness statements and the post-mortem report, in deciding whether bail was warranted for each petitioner.

Source reference: p. 8–9

The judgment cites no precedent and does not set out a broader test for bail.

Source reference: no citation

Reasoning

The Court found that CW-1, CW-25 and CW-26 identified accused No. 5 as the person who stabbed the deceased, and that the post-mortem report attributed death to a stab injury; it therefore found sufficient material against him at that stage.

Source reference: p. 8–9

By contrast, accused Nos. 4, 6 and 7 were alleged to have been present at the scene, but no individual assault or other overt act was attributed to them.

Source reference: p. 9

The Court considered the allegations against them insufficiently grave to refuse bail.

Source reference: p. 9

Holding

The Court rejected accused No. 5’s bail petition and allowed the petitions of accused Nos. 4, 6 and 7.

It ordered the latter to be released on a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular court attendance and no involvement in similar offences.

Source reference: p. 9–10

The order’s first clause refers to the rejected petition as “Crl.P. No. 102232/2026,” although the petition particulars identify accused No. 5’s petition as No. 102332/2026.

Source reference: p. 2–3, 9