Karnataka HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Stabbing His Alleged Lover’s Husband

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner had made out grounds for regular bail despite the alleged direct role in a murder punishable under Section 103(1) of the BNS.

The court held

The High Court dismissed the bail petition, finding no special ground for release in light of the prima facie material, the petitioner’s alleged overt act, and the gravity of the charge.

It also directed

It permitted the petitioner, if so advised, to renew his application before the trial Court after examination of the material witnesses.

01Facts

The petitioner, accused No. 2, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a case alleging offences under Sections 49, 62, 103(1) and 238 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

pp. 3–5

The prosecution alleged that accused Nos. 3 and 4 restrained the deceased while the petitioner stabbed him with a knife on the neck and head, causing his death.

pp. 3–5

The charge sheet alleged that the petitioner directed accused No. 5 to bring the knife and then used it to attack the deceased.

pp. 3–5

The petitioner’s earlier bail petition before the High Court had been withdrawn with liberty to approach the Sessions Court; the Sessions Court subsequently rejected his bail application.

p. 6

The petitioner relied on completion of the investigation and the grant of bail to other accused, including accused No. 1.

p. 5 · p. 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner had made out grounds for regular bail despite the alleged direct role in a murder punishable under Section 103(1) of the BNS.

pp. 3–5 · pp. 8–9

ii.2. Whether completion of the investigation and the grant of bail to the co-accused entitled the petitioner to bail, including on the ground of parity.

pp. 7–8

03Law Applied

The Court considered the bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS and the charged offences under Sections 49, 62, 103(1) and 238 read with Section 190 of the BNS.

In assessing bail, it treated the seriousness of the alleged offence, the petitioner’s specific alleged role, the material in the charge sheet, and the risk of interference with witnesses or the trial as relevant considerations.

It also applied the principle that parity does not require identical bail treatment where the allegations and roles of the accused materially differ.

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 49 Section 62 Section 103 Section 238 Section 190

04Reasoning

The Court found that the charge-sheet material attributed a specific and direct role to the petitioner: obtaining the knife through accused No. 5 and stabbing the deceased multiple times.

p. 5 · p. 8

It considered the alleged motive—an illicit relationship between the petitioner and accused No. 1—and the gravity of the offence, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

p. 4 · pp. 8–9

The Court was also concerned that release could enable the petitioner to tamper with prosecution witnesses or hamper the trial.

p. 8

It held that filing of the charge sheet did not, by itself, justify bail and that parity was unavailable because the allegations against the petitioner differed from those against the co-accused; accused No. 1 had been granted bail principally because she was a woman and no material showed her role in executing the offence.

pp. 6–8

05Holding

The High Court dismissed the bail petition, finding no special ground for release in light of the prima facie material, the petitioner’s alleged overt act, and the gravity of the charge.

pp. 8–9

It permitted the petitioner, if so advised, to renew his application before the trial Court after examination of the material witnesses.

p. 9

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF