Karnataka HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Killing His Wife’s Alleged Lover, Citing No Eyewitnesses And Co-Accused Family’s Release

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the material on record.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be released on bail in S.C. No. 69/2026 on execution of a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

It also directed

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting witness tampering, requiring attendance at every hearing, and barring the petitioner from leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission; breach of any condition would entail cancellation of bail.

01Facts

The petitioner, accused No. 1, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered for offences under Sections 103(1), 3(5) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

p. 2

The prosecution alleged that, after the deceased came to accused No. 2’s house and abused her, accused Nos. 2 to 4 restrained him while accused No. 1 struck him with a sickle or machete, causing his death.

pp. 2–3

The case rested on circumstantial evidence, and there were no eyewitnesses; the investigation was complete and a charge sheet had been filed.

pp. 3–4, 5

Accused Nos. 2 to 4 had been granted bail, while the petitioner had been in custody since 2 March 2026.

pp. 4–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the material on record.

pp. 2, 5–6

ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with accused Nos. 2 to 4, who had already been released on bail.

p. 5

03Law Applied

The Court considered Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), which empowers the High Court to grant bail.

p. 2

The alleged offences were under Sections 103(1), 3(5) and 238 of the BNS.

p. 2, 6

In exercising bail discretion, the Court stated that it should consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the accused’s position in relation to the victim and witnesses, the risk of absconding or reoffending, and the possibility of witness tampering; it also noted that bail proceedings should not become a mini-trial.

p. 6

The Court referred to the general principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception,” subject to circumstances justifying refusal.

p. 5

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 103 Section 3 Section 238

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302

04Reasoning

The Court took into account that the prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence and had no eyewitnesses, that the investigation and charge-sheet filing were complete, and that the petitioner had remained in custody since 2 March 2026.

pp. 5–6

It also noted that accused Nos. 2 to 4 had been granted bail and that no progress had been made after the case was committed to the Sessions Court.

p. 5

Applying the relevant bail considerations without conducting a mini-trial, the Court concluded that there were no reasonable and sufficient grounds, at that stage, to believe that the petitioner was guilty of the alleged offences.

p. 6