Regular bail granted to accused whose alleged role was limited to pushing the deceased.

The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos. 1–3, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a sessions case arising from a prosecution for offences under Sections 126(2), 352 and 103 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution arose from a dispute between relatives over partition of immovable property.

The deceased, Mallappa, allegedly sustained a head injury after accused No. 1 pushed him during a quarrel; accused Nos. 2 and 3 allegedly later assaulted him with wooden clubs.

He died after being taken to hospital.

The post-mortem report recorded 14 injuries and attributed death to haemorrhage and shock from multiple injuries.

After the Trial Court rejected their bail application, the accused approached the High Court

Whether accused No. 1 should be granted regular bail, having regard to the alleged role attributed to him in the incident

Whether accused Nos. 2 and 3 should be granted regular bail before the eyewitness, CW.3, was examined

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

The charged offences were under Sections 126(2), 352 and 103 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The order does not cite precedents or state a broader bail test; it assesses the petitioners’ respective alleged roles and the material then available in deciding whether to grant bail.

The Court distinguished between the petitioners’ alleged roles.

It noted that accused No. 1 was alleged to have quarrelled with and pushed the deceased, causing him to fall and sustain a head injury against a sharp edge of a stone; he was not alleged to have assaulted the deceased with a deadly weapon.

By contrast, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were alleged to have assaulted the deceased with wooden clubs, and the post-mortem report recorded multiple injuries.

The Court also considered CW.3’s account of each accused’s role.

On this material, it found the case for granting bail to accused No. 1 distinguishable, while declining bail to accused Nos. 2 and 3 at that stage

Accused No. 1 was granted regular bail on conditions, including execution of a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, regular appearance before the Trial Court, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, and restrictions on involvement in similar offences and leaving the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission.

The petition was rejected as to accused Nos. 2 and 3, with liberty to renew their bail applications before the Trial Court after CW.3 is examined