Regular bail warranted where the charge sheet alleges only instigation and no direct assault by the accused.

The petitioner, arrayed as accused No. 1, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a sessions case arising from a fatal incident outside a pub in Mysuru.

The prosecution alleged that accused Nos. 2 and 3 assaulted Nishanth and pushed him towards a cardboard wall, which collapsed, causing him to fall and suffer fatal injuries; the petitioner was alleged to have instigated them.

The charge sheet was filed against six persons, and the petitioner’s earlier bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 24 August 2026.

Accused No. 4 had previously been granted bail by the High Court in Criminal Petition No. 8813 of 2026.

1. Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on regular bail in light of the allegations against him and the circumstances of the case.

2. Whether the petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedents weighed against granting bail.

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

The offences charged were under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 126(2), 351(1), 352 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The Court assessed the bail application by reference to the allegations attributed to the petitioner, the completed investigation and filed charge sheet, and the petitioner’s antecedents; it did not set out a separate general test for bail.

The Court noted that the charge sheet attributed the physical assault and the push that led to Nishanth’s fatal fall to accused Nos. 2 and 3, and that no weapon was used.

The allegation against the petitioner was limited to instigating those accused; the Court found no other allegation against him.

It also considered that accused No. 4 had already been granted bail in the same case.

Although the State relied on the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, the petitioner’s counsel produced an acquittal judgment in the only other case said to have been registered against him.

Having considered these circumstances, the Court concluded that bail should be granted.

These included executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, attending trial hearings unless exempted, not threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses, not committing similar offences, and not leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission until disposal of the case.