01Facts
The petitioners, accused Nos. 2 and 3, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a case arising from the alleged theft of silver items, including a silver lion-faced idol, from Siddeshwara Temple in Katral village on 13 June 2026.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 2, 4The State opposed bail, submitting that the charge sheet had been filed, property had been recovered, the petitioners were involved in other cases, and release could risk further offending, witness tampering, or interference with trial.
p. 3 · ¶ 3The petitioners denied the allegations.
p. 3 · ¶ 3The Court noted that the investigation was complete and that the petitioners were women with minor children; it also found no material before it establishing prior similar offending by them.
pp. 4–6 · ¶ 5, 7–802Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioners, accused of offences under Sections 305, 331(3), and 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), had made out grounds for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.
p. 2, 6 · ¶ 2, 9ii.2. Whether the petitioners’ status as women, their family circumstances, the nature and maximum punishment of the alleged offences, and the stated risks to the proceedings supported granting bail subject to conditions.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 6–903Law Applied
The Court considered the bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS and the benefit available to women under Section 480 of the BNSS.
p. 2, 5 · ¶ 2, 7It observed that the alleged offences were not punishable with death or life imprisonment, carried a maximum term of ten years, and were exclusively triable by a Magistrate.
p. 5 · ¶ 6The Court also applied the principle that pre-trial custody should not operate as punishment and that apprehensions about interference with the case may be addressed through appropriate bail conditions.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 8–9Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483Section 480
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 305Section 331Section 112
04Reasoning
The Court treated the filing of the charge sheet and the alleged recovery as relevant but not sufficient, by themselves, to justify continued pre-trial detention.
p. 5 · ¶ 5–6Even assuming prima facie material against the petitioners, the offences did not carry death or life imprisonment and were Magistrate-triable.
p. 5 · ¶ 5–6The petitioners’ status as women, their minor children, and the absence of material showing prior similar offending supported release; the Court further noted that the petitioners were implicated on the basis of a recovery following accused No. 4’s statement.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 7–8It held that the State’s concerns could be addressed by conditions requiring court attendance and cooperation, prohibiting witness tampering and further offending, and permitting an application for cancellation if the conditions were breached.
pp. 6–8 · ¶ 9–1005Holding
The Court allowed the petition and directed that accused Nos. 2 and 3 be released on bail in C.C. No. 8470/2026, on execution of a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 each with one surety for the like sum, subject to specified conditions.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 10The conditions require attendance before and assistance to the trial court and, when required, the Investigating Officer; prohibit witness tampering, obstruction of further investigation, and commission of further offences; and permit the police to seek cancellation of bail for breach.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 10Original Court PDF
MAKTUNBIvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
