Karnataka HC Grants Bail To Two Men Accused Of Sharing A Woman’s Obscene Videos And Demanding ₹40,000 To Return Her Chain

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the allegations and material collected in the charge sheet.

The court held

The Court allowed both criminal petitions and ordered the petitioners’ release on regular bail in S.C. No. 339/2026, subject to each executing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum.

It also directed

Conditions included attending hearings, not tampering with or threatening prosecution witnesses, cooperating with the investigating officer, and not committing further offences; breach could result in an application for cancellation of bail.

01Facts

The complainant alleged that Accused No. 1 came into contact with her through Instagram and later, with Accused No. 2, snatched her mobile phone and mangalya chain.

pp. 3–4

She further alleged that the accused shared obscene videos of her and demanded ₹40,000 for returning the chain

pp. 3–4

The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

pp. 3–5

After the charge sheet was filed, they sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Gadag CEN Crime No. 36/2026 and S.C. No. 339/2026

pp. 3–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the allegations and material collected in the charge sheet.

pp. 5–7

ii.2. Whether the prosecution’s concerns that the petitioners might threaten the victim or hamper the trial justified refusing bail.

pp. 5–7

03Law Applied

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

p. 6

In considering bail, the Court must assess factors including the nature and circumstances of the alleged offence, the accused’s position in relation to the victim and witnesses, the risk of absconding or reoffending, and the likelihood of witness tampering.

p. 6

A bail hearing is not a mini-trial; the Court need not undertake a detailed evaluation of the prosecution evidence.

p. 6

The offences alleged were under Sections 67(A), 66(E) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008, and Sections 319(2), 351(2), 352 and 308 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

p. 3

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 319 Section 351 Section 352 Section 308 Section 3

04Reasoning

The Court considered the allegations of extortion and sexual exploitation, but noted that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.

p. 5, 7

It also observed that the alleged offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life exceeding seven years.

p. 7

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

pp. 6–7

The potential risk to the victim and trial could be addressed through bail conditions.

pp. 5, 7–8