Athani Murder Case: Karnataka HC Grants Bail To Two Accused, Citing Circumstantial Evidence And Parity With Co-Accused

The petitioners, accused Nos. 2 and 9, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 182/2025 of Athani Police Station, registered for offences under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 126(2), 352, 49 and 238 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Shivadas Kosti, was assaulted by the accused on 28 April 2025 and that his body was abandoned at a vacant plot; it was discovered on 1 May 2025.

The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated, that no incriminating articles had been recovered from them, and that they would cooperate with the investigation.

The State opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the alleged offences and the risk of witness tampering.

The Court noted that other accused with similar allegations had been granted bail.

The petition was brought under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.

The alleged offences arose under the specified BNS provisions, including Section 103(1) concerning murder.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the severity of the potential punishment, the likelihood of absconding, the accused’s character and antecedents, the risk of witness tampering, and parity with similarly situated co-accused.

No precedent is cited in the order.

The Court observed that, although the State referred to eight eyewitnesses, none had promptly informed the police and the FIR did not mention eyewitnesses; on the material then available, the case appeared to rest on circumstantial evidence, with insufficient material at that stage connecting the petitioners to the crime.

It also noted that no incriminating material had been recovered from certain co-accused and that the allegations against the petitioners were similar to those against co-accused already granted bail.

Weighing those circumstances against the seriousness of the offences and the risks identified, the Court found that bail was justified on parity and subject to safeguards.

The conditions required them not to tamper with or threaten witnesses, to cooperate with the investigation, to mark attendance at the police station on the 1st and 16th of each month for six months or until filing of the final report, to attend court regularly, and not to involve themselves in similar offences; breach could lead the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.