After over five years in custody with no witness examined, Karnataka High Court grants bail to accused in child kidnapping-murder case

The petitioner, Accused No. 1, was arrested on 2 August 2021 in connection with a kidnapping and murder case registered by Hebbagodi Police Station.

The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence, including an alleged ransom call, last-seen evidence and CCTV footage.

The petitioner’s earlier bail petition was dismissed in 2023.

At the time of this successive application, he had been in custody for more than five years, no prosecution witness had been examined, and Accused Nos. 2–4 had been granted bail.

The petition sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in a successive application, having regard to the period of custody and the delay in commencement of trial.

2. Whether the seriousness of the charged offences precluded bail despite the apparent inability to conclude the trial in the near future.

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 provides the basis for the High Court’s bail jurisdiction.

Article 21 of the Constitution protects an accused’s right to a speedy trial; the seriousness of the alleged offence does not displace that right.

The Court relied on Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, which held that where the State or prosecuting agency cannot ensure a speedy trial, it should not oppose bail solely on the ground of the seriousness of the crime.

The offences alleged against the petitioner were under Sections 364-A, 302, 120-B, 202 and 212 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The Court considered that the petitioner had spent more than five years in custody, had no other criminal antecedents, and had not faced examination of even one prosecution witness.

It found that trial completion in the near future was remote.

In light of the Article 21 principle stated in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, the seriousness of the charges did not justify continued detention in these circumstances.

The Court granted bail without expressing any view on the merits of the prosecution case.

Conditions included execution of a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties, one being a local surety; regular attendance at trial; non-interference with prosecution witnesses; no involvement in similar offences; and no leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission.