Karnataka High Court
Criminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

An accused with no antecedents may be granted bail on parity with similarly implicated co-accused.

MOHAMMAD MANSUR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 28, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
An accused with no antecedents may be granted bail on parity with similarly implicated co-accused.. MOHAMMAD MANSUR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner, accused No. 9, was charged in Special C.C. No. 1704/2025 with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the NDPS Act, the Information Technology Act, the Arms Act and the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act.

Source reference: paras. 1, 6–8

The prosecution alleged that he, a former driver of the victim, provided information about the victim’s whereabouts to other accused and later received ₹10,000 from money taken from the victim.

Source reference: paras. 1, 6–8

The petitioner had been in custody since 27 February 2025; the trial had not commenced, and his application for bail before the Sessions Court had been rejected.

Source reference: paras. 3–4

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

Source reference: para. 1
02

Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail, having regard to the bail granted to co-accused against whom similar allegations were made.

Source reference: paras. 4, 6, 9

2. Whether the petitioner’s custody, lack of criminal antecedents and the fact that trial had not commenced supported release on bail.

Source reference: paras. 4, 9
03

Law Applied

The Court considered the petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail.

Source reference: para. 1

In deciding the application, the Court considered parity with co-accused, the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, the period of custody and the stage of trial.

Source reference: paras. 4, 9

No precedent was cited.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, although the charge sheet alleged that he supplied information facilitating the kidnapping and received ₹10,000 from the proceeds.

Source reference: paras. 6, 8

It gave weight to the undisputed fact that co-accused facing similar allegations had been granted bail, and observed that those co-accused had criminal antecedents while the petitioner did not.

Source reference: para. 9

The petitioner had also been in custody for more than one year and six months, with trial yet to commence.

Source reference: para. 9

In the circumstances, the Court considered regular bail appropriate, subject to conditions.

Source reference: no citation
05

Holding

The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail in Special C.C. No. 1704/2025.

Bail was subject to a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; regular attendance before the trial court; non-interference with prosecution witnesses; refraining from similar offences; and not leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission until disposal of the case.

Source reference: para. 10
06

Acts & Sections Cited

18 provisions across 7 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 202311 provisions

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19852

Information Technology Act, 20001

Arms Act, 19591

KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIMES ACTS, 20001

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

MOHAMMAD MANSURvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · September 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment