Nagaraj S/O Mahadevappa Madar vs State Of Karnataka

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J

The captioned petition is filed by accused No.7 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.80/2025 registered by Nidagundi Police Station, Vijayapura District, pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Basavana Bagewadi, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 126(2), 103(1) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Initially, the complaint came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 4. Subsequently, upon the death of Sharif, Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came to be invoked. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.5 to 7, who were not named in the FIR, were apprehended on 20.07.2025. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency has dropped accused Nos.1 to 4 from the charge-sheet and has filed the charge-sheet only against accused Nos.5 to 7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, would submit that the petitioner is a young student aged about 21 years, pursuing his final year B.A. course, and his continued incarceration has seriously affected his education. It is further contended that there is an unexplained delay of four days in lodging the complaint, which casts a doubt on the very genesis of the prosecution case. Learned counsel would further submit that even as per the remand application, the allegation of chasing and assaulting the injured and the deceased is attributed only to accused Nos.5 and 6, and no specific overt-act of assault is attributed to the present petitioner/accused No.7. It is lastly contended that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed and therefore, continued detention of the petitioner is unwarranted.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State opposes the petition contending that the offences alleged are serious in nature and that the petitioner was present in the car which allegedly intercepted the motorbike of the injured and the deceased.

Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been implicated only during the course of investigation. The only role attributed to the petitioner is that he was a passenger in the car which allegedly stopped the motorbike of the injured and the deceased. No specific act of assault, use of weapon, or infliction of injuries is attributed to the petitioner.

The medical records, which assume significance at this stage, disclose that the incident was initially reported as a road traffic accident. It is also noticed that accused No.1, who was initially named in the FIR, has now been cited as a prosecution witness (PW-21). It is well settled that while considering a petition for grant of bail, the Court is required to strike a balance between the seriousness of the offence and the necessity of continued custodial detention. In the present case, the role attributed to the petitioner appears to be limited and passive in nature, without any specific allegation of violence.

The petitioner is a young student and no criminal antecedents are placed on record against him. The investigation having culminated in filing of the charge-sheet, further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The prosecution has also not placed any tangible material to demonstrate that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would abscond or interfere with the course of trial.

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the discretionary power vested in this Court deserves to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail, subject to stringent conditions to secure his presence and to ensure a fair trial.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioner/accused No.7 shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.80/2025 registered by Nidagundi Police Station, Vijayapura District, pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 126(2), 103(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or evidence, either directly or indirectly;

iii) The petitioner shall appear regularly before the Trial Court during the course of the proceedings, unless exempted for valid reasons by the said Court;

iv) The petitioner shall not involve himself in any offence or criminal activity, similar in nature or otherwise, during the pendency of the case;

v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without obtaining prior permission of the said Court until disposal of the case;

vi) It is made clear that violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.