Criminal antecedents alone cannot justify denying bail where the accused is otherwise entitled.

The petitioner, Accused No. 4, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in a case arising from Crime No. 09/2025, registered at Bajpe Police Station and pending as Special Case No. 365/2025.

The prosecution alleged that he helped Accused Nos. 2 and 3 destroy the mobile phone and SIM card used to make a threatening conference call to the complainant from jail.

The charge sheet invoked, among other provisions, Sections 3(2) and 3(4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000.

The Sessions Court had rejected the petitioner’s bail application.

Accused Nos. 2 and 3, alleged participants in the threatening call, had since been granted bail by the High Court.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the petitioner had criminal antecedents.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in light of the allegations that he assisted in destroying the phone and SIM card used in the alleged threatening call.

Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, by themselves, justified refusing bail.

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, provides the procedural basis for the High Court’s consideration of a regular-bail application.

The Court relied on Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, for the principle that criminal antecedents alone do not warrant rejection of bail where the accused is otherwise entitled to relief on the merits.

The Court also considered the grant of bail to co-accused alleged to have participated in the threatening call.

The Court assessed the petitioner’s alleged role—helping destroy the phone and SIM card—against the fact that the co-accused alleged to have made the threatening call had been granted bail.

It acknowledged the State’s objection based on the petitioner’s antecedents but noted that the co-accused who had received bail also had criminal antecedents.

Applying Prabhakar Tewari, the Court held that antecedents alone were insufficient to deny relief and concluded that the petitioner’s application should be allowed subject to conditions.

It directed that the petitioner be released on bail in Special Case No. 365/2025 upon executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum.

Conditions included regular attendance before the Trial Court, no threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses, no involvement in similar offences, and no leaving the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission while the case remains pending.