Karnataka HC Denies Bail To Accused Alleged To Have Held Knives While Stopping Witnesses From Rescuing Murder Victim, But Allows Fresh Plea After Prosecution Testimony

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner had made out a case for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the allegations, the stage of trial and the asserted risk of interference with witnesses.

The court held

The High Court dismissed the criminal petition and declined to grant the petitioner regular bail.

It also directed

It permitted him to renew his bail application after examination of the prosecution witnesses.

01Facts

The prosecution alleged that, on 6 May 2020, during an incident arising from an earlier dispute, other accused assaulted Siddappa, while the petitioner (Accused No. 17) and others allegedly prevented eyewitnesses from intervening and threatened them.

p. 4, 6

Siddappa died the following morning.

p. 4, 6

The petitioner, charged with offences including murder, offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

pp. 3–5

He relied on nearly six years in custody, interim bail during which his marriage was solemnised, and bail granted to co-accused.

pp. 3–5

The prosecution opposed bail, citing the evidence against him, his alleged rowdy-sheeter status and the risk of witness interference; it also submitted that material witnesses had testified against him.

pp. 3–5

The Sessions Court had rejected his bail application.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner had made out a case for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the allegations, the stage of trial and the asserted risk of interference with witnesses.

pp. 5–7

ii.2. Whether the bail granted to co-accused entitled the petitioner to bail on the ground of parity, despite the court’s assessment that the allegations against him were distinct.

p. 6

03Law Applied

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the BNSS, which was the statutory basis invoked for the petitioner’s application for regular bail.

pp. 2–3

The Court assessed the application by reference to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material on record, the stage of the proceedings and the prosecution’s apprehension of witness interference.

p. 7

It held, in applying parity, that bail granted to co-accused does not by itself entitle an applicant to bail where the allegations against that applicant are distinct.

p. 6

The order cites no precedent.

Provisions in the judgment · 20 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Indian Penal Code, 1860 17 provisions

Section 143 Section 144 Section 147 Section 148 Section 150 Section 212 Section 201 Section 109 Section 115 Section 341 Section 302 Section 504 Section 506 Section 34 Section 35 Section 37 Section 149

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3

KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIMES ACTS, 2000 Section 3

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the charge-sheet alleged that the petitioner and certain co-accused, while holding knives, prevented eyewitnesses from intervening as the deceased was assaulted.

p. 6

Although other accused had been granted bail, the Court found the allegations against the petitioner distinct and rejected parity as sufficient ground for release.

p. 6

It also considered the petitioner’s rowdy-sheeter status, the prosecution’s account of threats to witnesses, the trial stage and the evidence said to have emerged from the testimony of material witnesses.

pp. 5–7

On those considerations, it found that the petitioner had not established grounds for regular bail.

p. 7