The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that anticipatory bail must be granted where accused persons have no direct involvement in the commission of an offence, even when charged under conspiracy provisions. This decision clarifies the threshold for denying bail based solely on association rather than active participation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from Crime No. 177/2026 registered by Banaswadi Police Station, Bengaluru, on 09.03.2026, following an assault on Sri S. Murugan, a real-estate businessman, inside a saloon. The complainant, Smt. Preethi, wife of the victim, alleged that four individuals wearing helmets entered the saloon and inflicted grievous injuries before fleeing. She suspected the petitioners’ involvement due to prior business disagreements.
Key Facts
- The victim, Sri S. Murugan, sustained grievous injuries but has since been discharged and is in stable condition.
- Four individuals - Parthiban, Daniel, Arun, and Sharath Kumar - were identified as the direct assailants who entered the saloon and physically attacked the victim.
- The petitioners, Sri Ajay Chacko and Sri Sandeep Kumar B., were initially named as Accused No. 4 and No. 5 in the FIR but were later reclassified as Accused No. 8 in police records.
- There is no allegation that either petitioner was present at the saloon during the assault.
- No eyewitness or forensic evidence links the petitioners to the actual act of violence.
- The petitioners have no prior criminal record.
- Daniel and Sharath Kumar, two of the direct assailants, were granted regular bail by a coordinate bench of this Court on 29.05.2026.
Procedural History
- 09.03.2026: FIR registered under Sections 118(1), 352, 118(2), and 109(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
- 26.03.2026: Petitioner No. 2 (Sandeep Kumar B.) applied for anticipatory bail before the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru (Crl. Misc. No. 25272/2026); application rejected.
- 29.05.2026: Coordinate bench of the Karnataka High Court granted regular bail to two direct assailants, Daniel and Sharath Kumar, in Crl.P. No. 7409/2026.
- 09.06.2026: Criminal Petition No. 5883/2026 filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before the Karnataka High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners:
- Argued that they were not present at the scene of crime and did not participate in the assault.
- Contended that their alleged involvement is based solely on suspicion and conspiracy, without any corroborative evidence.
- Highlighted the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that two direct perpetrators had already been granted bail.
- Relied on the principle that conspiracy charges cannot be sustained without prima facie evidence of active participation or coordination.
For the Respondent:
- Maintained that the petitioners were named in the FIR as conspirators under Section 109 read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
- Argued that the gravity of the offence warranted denial of anticipatory bail.
- Did not produce any material linking the petitioners to planning, instigation, or financial support for the assault.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 177/2026, subject to reasonable conditions, and prayed for the quashing of any arrest warrant issued against them.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail can be denied solely on the basis of being named as a conspirator under Section 109 read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023, when there is no evidence of presence, participation, or direct involvement in the commission of the offence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the principle that conspiracy cannot be inferred from mere association or suspicion. They cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to emphasize that arrest must not be automatic and that the court must examine the nature of involvement. They argued that the absence of any eyewitness account, CCTV footage, or communication records linking them to the assault rendered the charge of conspiracy speculative. The fact that two direct assailants had already been granted bail further undermined the necessity of detaining the petitioners.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the petitioners were named in the FIR as part of a larger conspiracy and that the seriousness of grievous hurt warranted caution. However, the State did not adduce any evidence of prior planning, financial support, or communication between the petitioners and the assailants. The argument rested primarily on the statutory framework of BNS and the potential for witness tampering, without specific factual grounding.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the distinction between direct perpetrators and alleged conspirators. It noted that Section 109 of BNS requires active participation in the commission of an offence, not mere association or suspicion. The Court observed that the complainant’s statement, while raising suspicion, did not provide any concrete link between the petitioners and the assault.
"The petitioners were not present at the scene of crime and there is no material to suggest that they instigated, aided, or abetted the assault. The charge of conspiracy under Section 109 read with Section 3(5) of BNS cannot be sustained on allegations alone."
The Court further noted that the two direct assailants had already been granted regular bail, indicating that the investigation had progressed sufficiently to assess culpability. The Court held that denying bail to those with no direct involvement would violate the principle of proportionality and the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
The Court also rejected the State’s generalized concern about witness tampering, stating that such apprehensions could be addressed through specific conditions, rather than outright denial of bail.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The State of Karnataka and all police authorities are directed to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 177/2026, subject to the following conditions: (a) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days of receiving a copy of this order and execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of the like amount; (b) They shall regularly appear before the Trial Court unless exempted for valid reasons; (c) They shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or obstruct the investigation; (d) They shall not commit any similar offence in future.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Conspiracy Charges Require More Than Suspicion
- Practitioners must now insist on concrete evidence of planning, communication, or financial support before accepting conspiracy charges under Section 109 BNS.
- Mere inclusion in an FIR based on the complainant’s suspicion is insufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
- Courts must distinguish between direct perpetrators and alleged facilitators.
Bail Denial Must Be Proportionate
- The grant of bail to direct assailants in the same case creates a strong precedent for extending similar relief to alleged conspirators with no direct involvement.
- Courts should not use the gravity of the offence as a blanket justification to deny bail where the accused’s role is peripheral.
- Conditions such as bond execution and non-interference with witnesses are adequate safeguards.
Procedural Fairness in Investigation
- Police must record specific reasons for naming individuals as conspirators, beyond mere association.
- Delayed inclusion of accused (e.g., reclassification from Accused No. 4 to No. 8) without fresh evidence weakens the case for detention.
- Courts must scrutinize the investigative record before upholding charges under Section 109 BNS.
