Karnataka HC Grants Bail To Two Murder-Case Accused After Eyewitnesses Turn Hostile, Nearly 18 Months In Custody

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioners should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the evidence recorded, their period in custody and the other circumstances of the case

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and directed that both petitioners be released on regular bail in S.C. No. 5045/2025

It also directed

Each must execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like amount; attend trial unless exempted; refrain from threatening or tampering with witnesses and from similar offences; and not leave the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission until disposal of the case

01Facts

The petitioners were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in a murder case arising from Crime No. 113/2025, registered by Harohalli Police Station.

p. 3

The prosecution alleged that accused No. 1 conspired with others to murder Santhosh Kumar and that the petitioners followed him in a car, struck his motorcycle and assaulted him with deadly weapons

pp. 3–4

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against five accused.

p. 3

The petitioners’ bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court on 8 October 2026, and they sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS

p. 3

At the time of the High Court’s decision, the alleged eyewitnesses had been examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and had turned hostile; accused Nos. 3 to 5 had also been granted bail

pp. 4–5

The petitioners had been in custody for nearly one year and six months, although the State brought their criminal antecedents to the Court’s attention

p. 5

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioners should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the evidence recorded, their period in custody and the other circumstances of the case

pp. 4–5

ii.Whether the petitioners’ criminal antecedents precluded their release on bail in the circumstances presented

p. 5

03Law Applied

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the BNSS, which provides the High Court’s power to grant bail.

The charged offences were under Sections 61(2)(a), 49, 249, 190, 103(1), 125(a) and 281 of the BNS, 2023

p. 2, 6

The order does not cite any precedent or set out a broader bail test; it assesses the petitioners’ request in light of the circumstances identified by the Court and imposes conditions on their release

pp. 5–7

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 61 Section 49 Section 281 Section 125 Section 103 Section 249 Section 190

04Reasoning

The Court treated the hostile testimony of both alleged eyewitnesses, who had been examined and cross-examined, as a significant change in the evidentiary position

p. 4

It also took account of the petitioners’ lengthy custody and the fact that the co-accused had been granted bail

pp. 4–5

Although the State raised the petitioners’ criminal antecedents, the Court concluded that the overall circumstances warranted bail, subject to conditions intended to secure attendance and protect the prosecution process

pp. 5–7