Nagaraj & Ors. vs The State Of Karnataka

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader (for short ‘HCGP’) for the respondent on the petition. Perused the relevant materials on record.

This petition is filed by the petitioners / accused No.1 to 5 praying for an order to release them on bail in the case in Crime No.62/2026 of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(2), 352, 351(2) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) pending before the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raichur.

Learned HCGP has not chosen to file any objections to the petition. However, he has produced report of the Investigating Officer along with prosecution papers regarding the investigation and also copy of the wound certificate of the victim and he has orally objected to the petition submitting that the investigation is not yet completed and hence, at this stage the contention of petitioners that they are innocent of the offences alleged against them does not merit consideration. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is chance of them tampering with prosecution witnesses and hampering further investigation of the case. Therefore, the learned HCGP has sought for dismissal of the petition.

The case alleged against the petitioners and other accused is that there is dispute between the complainant and petitioners in respect of plot situated in front of complainant’s house at Midgaldinni village. On 24.06.2026 at about 08.00 p.m., when the complainant was near his house, the petitioners along with other accused formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons i.e., stones and sticks and picked up quarrel with the complainant, abused him in filthy language and also assaulted him by machetes, stones and sticks and caused grievous injuries. At that time, when the complainant’s daughter came to pacify the quarrel, she was also assaulted by stick, as such she also sustained injuries. The petitioners also threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the petitioners have committed the alleged offences.

The contention of the petitioners is that they are innocent of the alleged offences and they have not committed any offence. However, as pointed out by the learned HCGP, there is overt act attributed to the petitioners as mentioned in the complaint. The investigation is at the initial stage and it is yet to be completed and hence, the contention of petitioners that they are innocent of the offences alleged against them does not merit consideration.

Moreover, the relevant portion in the complaint would show that the accused No.1 assaulted on the head of the complainant with machete, the petitioner No.2/ accused No.2 assaulted the complainant with stick, the petitioner No.4/ accused No.4 assaulted on the face of the complainant with stone and the petitioners No.3 and 5/ accused No.3 and 5 have assaulted with hands.

However, even if it is accepted that there is prima facie case against the petitioners for the alleged offences, the said offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Further, even though the alleged offences are triable by the learned Sessions Judge, the maximum punishment for the alleged offences is imprisonment for life. There is absolutely no any special or serious ground made out by the respondent Police to deny bail to the petitioners.

There is absolutely no antecedents of the petitioners forthcoming from the respondent Police to show that the petitioners committed similar offences or any offence earlier. Further, the prosecution papers on record would show that the petitioners are residents of Midgaldinni Village of Raichur within the jurisdiction of the Court of learned Magistrate and also of the trial Court.

Any of the apprehensions of the learned HCGP can be suitably met with by imposing proper and necessary conditions on the petitioners while granting bail in their favour. It is well settled that the bail is rule and jail in an exception. The accused cannot be allowed to detain in judicial custody during pretrial stage as punishment for the alleged offence. Moreover, the fact that the respondent Police sought remand of the petitioners to judicial custody would show that the custodial investigation of the petitioners is not required for the present in further investigation of the case.

As mentioned hereinabove, there is no special ground made out by the respondent Police to deny bail to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds to grant bail in their favour and consequently, this petition deserves to be allowed.

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.

Consequently, the petitioners/accused No.1 to 5 shall be enlarged on bail in the case in Crime No.62/2026 of the respondent Police registered for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(2), 352, 351(2) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending before the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raichur on their executing personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, subject to the following conditions that:

ii) They shall appear before the learned Magistrate and also before the trial Court as and when directed and they shall also attend the trial Court on all the hearing dates without fail.

iii) They shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses and hamper further investigation of the case in any manner, and

iv) They shall not commit similar offences or any offence during the pendency of the case.

If the petitioners violate any of the conditions of the bail, the bail granted in their favour shall stand cancelled.