Karnataka HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Killing Alleged Lover’s Husband After Two Eyewitnesses Fail To Support Prosecution

The appellant, accused No. 1, was charged with offences under Sections 302, 348, 120-B, 114 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arising from the alleged killing of the husband of accused No. 3.

His bail application was rejected by the Special Court on 27 March 2025; an earlier appeal against rejection of bail had also been dismissed.

In the present appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the appellant relied on the examination of two alleged eyewitnesses, who did not support the prosecution, his custody since 31 May 2023, and the limited progress of the trial.

The State opposed bail, citing the other witnesses yet to be examined, the alleged recovery of the weapon, and the risk of witness intimidation.

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, which provides the statutory basis for an appeal concerning the Special Court’s order.

The charges arose under Sections 302, 348, 120-B, 114 and 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The judgment does not cite a precedent or set out a distinct statutory test for bail; it determines the application on the circumstances of the case, including the status of material witnesses, the appellant’s custody and the stage of trial.

The Court noted that the earlier rejection of bail had relied on the risk to the two alleged eyewitnesses.

By the time of this appeal, those witnesses had been examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3 and had not supported the prosecution account of witnessing the incident, reducing the basis for apprehending interference with those material witnesses.

The appellant had been in custody since 31 May 2023, while only four witnesses had been examined, indicating that the trial remained at an early stage.

Having considered the State’s opposition and the record, the Court concluded that the appellant had made out a case for bail, subject to conditions addressing the remaining witnesses and his attendance at trial.

Bail was made subject to a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with one surety for the like sum, a condition not to tamper with the remaining prosecution witnesses, and a requirement to attend hearings unless exempted and cooperate in the speedy disposal of the case.