Karnataka HC Denies Bail For Now To Two Accused In Alleged Robbery, Citing Prior Similar-Offence Cases And Recovery From One

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioners had made out grounds for release on bail while the investigation remained incomplete

The court held

The Court dismissed the bail petition, finding no sufficient ground for release at that stage

It also directed

It left the petitioners at liberty to approach the trial Court for bail after completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet

01Facts

The petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 170/2026, registered for alleged offences under Sections 310(2) and 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

pp. 2–3

The prosecution alleged that the petitioners and others assaulted two persons, threatened them, and took cash, a mobile phone and an ATM card; a withdrawal of ₹20,000 was later reported

pp. 4–6

The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the alleged offences, the ongoing investigation, recovery of articles, alleged antecedents, and risks of absconding, witness interference and further offending

pp. 3–4

The Court also considered that co-accused had been granted bail, but distinguished their cases on the basis that their names were not in the FIR and no recovery had been made from them

pp. 9–10

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioners had made out grounds for release on bail while the investigation remained incomplete

pp. 3–4, 10–11

ii.Whether the bail granted to co-accused entitled the petitioners to bail on parity

pp. 9–10

03Law Applied

The Court considered the bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

p. 2

It also considered the alleged offences under Sections 310(2) and 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, noting the potential severity of the punishments

pp. 7–8

In assessing bail, the Court considered the gravity of the allegations, the state of the investigation, the petitioners’ alleged antecedents, the possibility of absconding or interfering with the investigation, and whether the co-accused’s cases were materially comparable

pp. 3–4, 9–10

No judicial precedents were cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 310 Section 311

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4 Section 6

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 380 Section 376

04Reasoning

The Court found that the allegations were serious and that the investigation had not been completed.

pp. 3–4, 6–8

It considered the State’s submissions regarding recovery and the petitioners’ alleged antecedents, including the prior cases referred to in the record; although an earlier POCSO/IPC case had ended in acquittal, the Court still regarded the asserted antecedents as relevant to the bail assessment

pp. 3–4, 6–8

It rejected parity because the co-accused were not named in the FIR and no recovery had been made from them, unlike the petitioners as described in the materials before the Court

pp. 9–10

It also considered the risks of further offending, absconding and prejudice to the investigation or trial

pp. 9–11