After Over 5 Years In Custody And 7 Months With No Witnesses Examined, Karnataka HC Grants Bail To Bank-Murder Accused

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in light of his prolonged pre-trial custody and the delay in completing the trial.

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner’s release on regular bail in S.C. No. 1416/2021, subject to a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum and conditions requiring regular attendance, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, avoidance of similar offences, and no departure from the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission.

01Facts

The petitioner, accused No. 1, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from the alleged murder of Joseph Babu and involving offences under the IPC and Arms Act.

¶ 1

His earlier bail application before the Sessions Court was rejected; a prior petition before the High Court was withdrawn with liberty to renew the application before the Sessions Court, which then rejected it on 16 September 2026.

¶ 3

The prosecution alleged that accused Nos. 1–3 were the assailants and that the other accused conspired with them.

¶ 5

The trial had 111 listed witnesses, but only 15 had been examined; the alleged eyewitnesses had been examined, and no witness had been examined for approximately seven months.

¶ 6, 8, 10

The petitioner had been in custody for more than five years; the other accused had been granted bail.

¶ 9, 11

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in light of his prolonged pre-trial custody and the delay in completing the trial.

¶ 10–14

ii.Whether, after examination of the alleged eyewitnesses, concerns about witness tampering weighed against release on bail.

¶ 8

03Law Applied

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the High Court with jurisdiction to grant bail.

¶ 1

Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right to a speedy trial; the Supreme Court’s observation in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, was that the seriousness of the alleged crime does not, by itself, justify opposing bail where the State or court cannot ensure a speedy trial.

¶ 13

The Court also relied on Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 810, and Saddam Hussain M.K. & Others v. Union of India, SLP (Crl.) No. 2717 of 2025 (19 May 2025), as support for granting bail in view of prolonged incarceration and trial delay.

¶ 12

Provisions in the judgment · 14 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Indian Penal Code, 1860 10 provisions

Section 302 Section 307 Section 143 Section 145 Section 147 Section 148 Section 201 Section 35 Section 37 Section 149

Arms Act, 1959 Section 25 Section 27

04Reasoning

The Court considered the petitioner’s custody exceeding five years alongside the limited progress of the trial: only 15 of 111 witnesses had been examined, and the prosecution had not produced a witness for approximately seven months.

¶ 10–11

It also noted that the alleged eyewitnesses had already testified, reducing the identified risk of interference with those witnesses.

¶ 8

Applying the speedy-trial principle under Article 21 and the cited Supreme Court decisions, the Court concluded that continued detention was not justified by the seriousness of the charges alone, without expressing any view on the merits.

¶ 12–14