Karnataka HC Grants Bail To Armed-Dacoity Accused Despite ₹53-Lakh Recovery, Citing Co-Accused’s Bail

The petitioner, accused No. 1, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), in a sessions case alleging offences under Sections 395 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(a) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant and a companion were intercepted while travelling, threatened and assaulted, and robbed of money and goods.

The petitioner had been in judicial custody since 2022; the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.

The petitioner relied on the grant of bail to accused No. 2 on grounds of parity.

The State opposed bail, citing the recovery of Rs. 53 lakh at the petitioner’s instance and the risk of absconding.

The Court considered the bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.), and the allegations under Sections 395 and 120B of the IPC and Section 25(a) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959.

It stated that, in deciding bail, a court should consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the petitioner’s position in relation to the victim and witnesses, the risk of absconding or reoffending, the possibility of witness tampering, and the petitioner’s character and antecedents.

A bail court need not conduct a mini-trial or comprehensively assess the prosecution evidence.

The Court weighed the seriousness of the allegations and the State’s reliance on the recovery of Rs. 53 lakh against the petitioner’s lengthy custody, the filing of the charge sheet, and the absence of criminal antecedents.

It also noted that accused No. 2, from whom Rs. 60 lakh had been recovered, had already been granted bail, supporting the petitioner’s parity argument.

Although the petitioner resided in Maharashtra and the State raised a concern that he might abscond, the Court concluded, on the material before it and without conducting a mini-trial, that there were no reasonable and sufficient grounds at that stage to believe the petitioner was guilty of the alleged offences.

These included a personal bond of Rs. 2 lakh with three sureties for the like sum—one resident of Maharashtra and two residents of Karnataka—attendance at each hearing unless exempted, cooperation with the trial, no intimidation or tampering with evidence or witnesses, no departure from the concerned police-station jurisdiction without prior information, and no commission of similar offences.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail petition and did not reflect on the merits of the case.