Karnataka HC Denies Bail To Alleged Stabber Held Six Years, Citing Unexamined Material Witnesses In 2020 Murder Trial

The petitioner, Accused No. 1, sought regular bail in a prosecution for offences under Sections 302, 506 and 120(B), read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that, following a dispute concerning land and unauthorized plots, the petitioner was hired as part of a conspiracy and stabbed the deceased, Ramesh Madhusa Bhandage, causing his death.

The petitioner was arrested on 26 November 2020 and had been in custody for approximately six years by the time of the petition.

The trial had commenced: 31 of 152 cited eyewitnesses had been examined, and the court noted that PW.1 supported the prosecution case.

The petitioner relied on the length of his custody, trial delay and witnesses turning hostile; the State and the de facto complainant opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the charge and the risk of interference with witnesses.

The petition was considered under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The alleged offences included murder under Section 302 IPC and conspiracy under Section 120(B) IPC.

Relying on X v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 INSC 909, paragraphs 15–16, the Court stated that courts should not ordinarily grant bail during a trial by assessing a victim’s evidence or perceived discrepancies; once commenced, the trial should generally proceed to conclusion.

Bail may, however, be justified where the trial is unduly delayed for reasons not attributable to the accused.

The Court considered the petitioner’s lengthy custody and the trial’s pendency, but noted that the prosecution allegation against him was that he personally stabbed the deceased and that the post-mortem report attributed death to a stab injury.

The trial was underway, PW.1 had supported the prosecution, and other material witnesses, including the deceased’s family members, remained to be examined.

Applying X v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that releasing the petitioner while material evidence remained to be recorded was not justified.

Although delay was raised, the Court did not find it sufficient to warrant bail at that stage and instead directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously.

It directed the trial court to dispose of the case expeditiously and without unnecessary adjournments, and granted the petitioner liberty to renew his request after examination of the material witnesses.