Karnataka HC Grants Bail To 19-Year-Old Accused In Group Assault Case, Noting No Antecedents And Victim’s Discharge Within Six Days

The petitioner, aged 19, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a case alleging offences under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 352, 115(2), 118(1) and 109(1), read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and others assaulted the injured, who suffered, among other injuries, a fracture of the right patella; the injured was discharged from hospital six days after the incident.

The petitioner’s name was not in the FIR, although the prosecution relied on statements alleging that he assaulted the injured with his hands and legs.

The petitioner had been in judicial custody for more than one and a half months, and the investigation remained ongoing.

There is an inconsistency in the judgment: paragraph 2 refers to Crime No. 97/2026, while the petition and operative order refer to Crime No. 79/2026.

Section 483 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The Court applied the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” and that an accused should not remain in custody during the pre-trial stage as punishment for the alleged offence.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the alleged offences and their punishment, the petitioner’s antecedents, the need for custodial interrogation, the duration of custody, and whether risks to the investigation or witnesses could be addressed by conditions.

Although the prosecution alleged an overt act by the petitioner and the injured had sustained a fracture, the Court noted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, the allegations attributed the use of a knife and iron rod to Accused Nos. 1 and 2, and the injured had been discharged within six days with no material indicating danger to life.

The Court also found no material showing prior criminal antecedents, noted that the petitioner was a local resident and had been in custody for over one and a half months, and concluded that custodial interrogation was not required.

The fact that the investigation was incomplete, without more, did not justify continued detention; the prosecution’s concerns could be addressed through appropriate conditions.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring cooperation with the investigation, attendance before the Magistrate and trial Court, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, and commission of no similar or other offence during the case; breach would result in cancellation of bail.