Karnataka HC Allows Murder-Case Approver 5 Days Of Escorted Home Visits For Father’s First Death Anniversary Rites

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could grant an approver temporary release to attend his father’s first death-anniversary ceremonies despite the custody requirement in Section 306(4) Cr.P.C.

The court held

The petition was allowed in part.

It also directed

The Court directed the petitioner’s release on bail, subject to a bond before the Trial Court, for the ceremonies from 7 to 12 November 2026, with escorted transport from prison to his residence and return to prison each day before 6:00 p.m.

It also imposed disclosure and non-contact conditions.

The order describes the period as “5 days” while specifying 7–12 November inclusive, which spans six calendar dates.

01Facts

The petitioner, an approver in a pending sessions trial involving offences including murder, sought temporary release for 20 days to perform ceremonies for his late father’s first death anniversary.

pp. 3–8 · ¶ 5–19, 22–24

The Trial Court had rejected his application, reasoning that Section 306(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) required an approver to remain in custody.

pp. 3–8 · ¶ 5–19, 22–24

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction; the State and a co-accused opposed release, citing the risk of influence or tutoring.

pp. 3–8 · ¶ 5–19, 22–24

The co-accused nevertheless submitted that the petitioner could attend the ceremonies under strict escort and supervision for a limited period.

pp. 3–8 · ¶ 5–19, 22–24

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could grant an approver temporary release to attend his father’s first death-anniversary ceremonies despite the custody requirement in Section 306(4) Cr.P.C.

pp. 4–5, 10–11 · ¶ 7–10, 25

ii.Whether the petitioner’s release should be limited and made subject to safeguards addressing the risk of contact with persons connected to the case.

pp. 6–8, 10–11 · ¶ 12–19, 22–25

03Law Applied

Section 306(4) Cr.P.C. requires an approver to remain in custody until the termination of the trial.

p. 9 · ¶ 21

In Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80, the Supreme Court explained that this requirement is intended not to punish the approver, but to protect the approver from retaliation and to prevent the approver from being tempted to withhold or alter evidence after release.

p. 9 · ¶ 21

The High Court considered its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (the petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) in addressing the request for exceptional, limited relief.

pp. 2, 4–5 · ¶ 7–10

Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 143 Section 147 Section 148 Section 149 Section 201 Section 302 Section 34

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 439 Section 306

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that Section 306(4) serves important protective and evidentiary purposes, but considered the specific request to attend time-sensitive religious ceremonies and the safeguards proposed by the parties.

pp. 9–11 · ¶ 21–25

It declined the requested 20-day release, but concluded that limited attendance could be permitted with strict escort, daily return to prison, advance disclosure of attending family members and priests, and prohibitions on contact with police officers, witnesses, and others connected with the case.

pp. 9–11 · ¶ 21–25