(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) praying to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.3 on Anticipatory Bail, in Hangal P.S. Crime No.33/2026, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Hanagal, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 352 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 In respect of Accused No.3/Petitioner is concerned and etc.,.)

Oral Order

1. Heard the arguments of Sri S.B.Doddagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Malipatil, learned HCGP for the respondent State and perused the material placed before the Court.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.3 on anticipatory bail in Hangal P.S. Crime No.33/2026, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Hanagal, for the offences punishable under sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 352 read with section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in respect of accused No.3/petitioner is concerned, by allowing this petition.

3. It is the brief case of prosecution as per the complaint averments that in a quarrel with the complainant, this petitioner/accused No.3 held the hands of the complainant and accused No.1 had taken a chopper, which is brought by the petitioner and accused No.1 had assaulted on the complainant. Therefore, with these allegations a crime was registered and the offences were foisted against the accused as stated above.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has only held the hands of the complainant and accused No.1 assaulted on the complainant with the chopper. This is the only overtact committed by petitioner/accused No.3. Therefore, prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.3 by allowing this petition.

5. The learned HCGP has vehemently objected for grant of bail to the petitioner and prays to reject the bail petition.

6. Upon considering the averments made in the complaint it is clear that deadly weapon like chopper was brought by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has held the hands of the complainant tightly so as to enable the accused No.1 to assault on the complainant with the chopper. Therefore, it is revealed that the petitioner is also responsible for the overtact committed by accused No.1. If the petitioner had not held the hands of the complainant tightly, then the complainant would have escaped. But due to confinement made by the petitioner by holding the hands of the complainant tightly, it was easy for accused No.1 to assault on the complainant. Therefore, for the overtact alleged, prima facie the petitioner is also found to be committed the offence with accused No.1.

7. Now investigation is still going on. Charge sheet is not yet filed. Therefore, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, then there are chances of absconding and fleeing away from justice and also threatening the witnesses. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits involved in the case, considering the gravity of the offence alleged, the Court is of the opinion to reject the anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.3. Accordingly the criminal petition is rejected.