After 17 Months In Custody, Karnataka HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Clubbing Deceased, Citing Specific Role And Trial Nearing End

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner should be released on bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the specific allegation that he caused the deceased’s death and the gravity of the charge under Section 103 BNS.

The court held

The High Court dismissed the criminal petition and refused to release the petitioner on bail.

It also directed

It directed the trial court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case at the earliest.

01Facts

The petitioner, accused No. 1, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a sessions case arising from an incident in which he was alleged to have struck the deceased on the head with a club, causing his death.

¶ 2

The petitioner and other accused faced charges under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 332(b), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 352, 351(2), and 103 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

¶ 4

The petitioner argued that he was innocent, that witnesses had turned hostile, and that he had been in judicial custody since 21 April 2025; the prosecution opposed bail, relying on the alleged specific role and the seriousness of the charge.

¶ 3, 5–8

At the time of the decision, most witnesses had been examined and the trial was expected to conclude soon.

¶ 8

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner should be released on bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the specific allegation that he caused the deceased’s death and the gravity of the charge under Section 103 BNS.

¶ 3, 8–10

ii.Whether the witnesses’ failure to support the prosecution, the petitioner’s period in custody, or the release of co-accused on bail justified granting bail.

¶ 6–9

03Law Applied

Section 483 BNSS provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of the petitioner’s bail application.

¶ 2

The petitioner faced, among other charges, an offence under Section 103 BNS, which the prosecution described as punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

¶ 3

The Court did not cite any precedent or set out a broader test for bail; it assessed the application by reference to the alleged overt act, the gravity of the offence, the status of the trial, and the circumstances advanced in support of release.

¶ 8–10

Provisions in the judgment · 10 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 9 provisions

Section 189 Section 191 Section 332 Section 115 Section 118 Section 352 Section 351 Section 103 Section 190

04Reasoning

The Court found prima facie material alleging that the petitioner personally struck the deceased with a club and caused his death.

¶ 9

It held that the fact that some witnesses had not supported the prosecution did not establish the petitioner’s innocence at the bail stage, particularly as PW.1, the deceased’s father, had partly supported the prosecution in chief-examination.

¶ 6–7

The Court also considered the seriousness of the offence and the trial’s expected near-term conclusion, and concluded that the petitioner’s custody of approximately one year and five months and the release of co-accused did not warrant bail in the circumstances.

¶ 8–10