Accused Alleged To Have Struck Tumakuru Man With Chain-Sprocket Weapon Gets Bail After Nearly 1 Year In Custody: Karnataka HC

In brief

The question

Whether the appellant, accused No. 3, should be released on bail while the charges arising from the fatal group altercation remained pending trial.

The court held

The Court answered the bail question in the appellant’s favour, allowed the appeal, set aside the Sessions Court’s order dated 21 May 2026, and allowed the application under Section 483 of the BNSS.

It also directed

It directed the appellant’s release on a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, subject to conditions that he not tamper with or threaten prosecution witnesses, attend every hearing, and not commit a similar offence. The State may seek cancellation of bail if he breaches any condition.

01Facts

The appellant, accused No. 3, was arrested on 15 November 2025 in Crime No. 194/2025, registered after a complaint concerning a fatal group altercation.

pp. 3, 7–8

The charge sheet alleged offences under Sections 103(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015.

pp. 3, 7–8

The appellant sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS); the Sessions Court dismissed his application on 21 May 2026, and he appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

pp. 2–3

The appellant relied on the alleged free fight, the counter-case, the absence of a shared intention to kill, and bail orders in favour of co-accused. The charge-sheet summary, however, attributed to him an assault on the deceased with a long.

pp. 4–7, 8–10

02Issues

i.Whether the appellant, accused No. 3, should be released on bail while the charges arising from the fatal group altercation remained pending trial.

pp. 3–4, 15–16

ii.Whether the circumstances relied on by the appellant—including his custody, the completion of investigation, and the bail granted to a co-accused—supported allowing the appeal against the Sessions Court’s refusal of bail.

pp. 10–11, 15–16

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, and the underlying bail application was made under Section 483 of the BNSS.

pp. 2–3

The charge sheet invoked Sections 103(1), 189(2), 191(2), and 191(3) read with Section 190 of the BNS, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

pp. 3, 7–8

The Court did not set out a separate statutory test for bail or rely on a cited precedent. It considered the appellant’s period in judicial custody, whether he was still required for investigation, the case circumstances, and the bail granted to accused No. 2.

p. 10

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 103 Section 189 Section 191 Section 190 Section 109

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the appellant had remained in judicial custody since 15 November 2025 and was no longer required for further investigation.

p. 10

It also took account of the circumstances of the incident and the grant of anticipatory bail to accused No. 2, while expressly refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

pp. 10–11

On those grounds, it found bail appropriate, without determining the appellant’s guilt or resolving the disputed account of the group altercation.