Karnataka HC Denies Bail To Accused Alleged To Have Stabbed Sheep-Farm Owner, Citing 13 Cases And Setting April 2027 Trial Deadline

The petitioner, Accused No. 1, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging offences under Sections 120-B, 396 and 457 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and other accused entered the deceased’s sheep farm, restrained him, and that the petitioner stabbed him; they then allegedly stole 35 sheep.

The petitioner had been arrested on 15 May 2022, and the charge sheet had been filed. He relied on the delay in trial and on an earlier order directing the trial court to conclude the trial by 30 December 2024.

The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s involvement in 13 criminal cases and body warrants issued in nine of them.

The Court found that the earlier direction had not been communicated to the trial court.

Under Section 483 of the BNSS, the Court considered the petitioner’s request for regular bail; the alleged offences were under Sections 120-B, 396 and 457 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

Bail discretion must be exercised judicially on the facts and circumstances of each case, taking account of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the alleged overt act, and the accused’s likely availability for trial; the seriousness of an offence or pendency of other cases, standing alone, is not necessarily sufficient to refuse bail.

The Court referred to Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, which recognised that the gravity of the offence and pending criminal cases cannot, by themselves, justify refusal of bail where the discretion was otherwise properly exercised.

The Court referred to Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, concerning the assessment of bail in light of the circumstances, including the period of incarceration and time likely to be required for trial.

The Court found a specific allegation that the petitioner stabbed the deceased, with the post-mortem report attributing death to stab injuries.

It also treated the petitioner’s alleged involvement in 13 criminal cases and the body warrants in nine cases as relevant to assessing his availability for trial.

Although the trial had not concluded within the time set by the earlier order, the Court noted that the order had not been communicated to the trial court and concluded that the delay did not outweigh the specific allegation and the petitioner’s antecedents in the circumstances of this case.

It considered the cited Supreme Court decisions distinguishable on the facts.

It directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it as early as possible, but no later than 30 April 2027, and directed the Registry to send the order to the trial court forthwith.