01Facts
The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos. 5 and 6, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a murder case registered at Melukote Police Station and pending as S.C. No. 5017 of 2026.
pp. 2–3The FIR, based on information given by the deceased’s brother, alleged that the deceased was assaulted and killed after a car struck the two-wheeler on which he was travelling.
pp. 3–6The petitioners were not named in the FIR and were arrested during the investigation on 17 December 2025.
pp. 3–6The charge sheet was filed against six persons; the alleged eyewitness’s statement naming the petitioners was recorded after their arrest, while another witness had not identified any assailant.
pp. 3–6The Court also noted that accused Nos. 7 and 8, and the alleged supplier of the weapons, had been granted bail.
pp. 3–602Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioners, accused Nos. 5 and 6 in a murder prosecution, should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.
pp. 2–3, 6ii.2. Whether the circumstances of the identification evidence, the petitioners’ non-mention in the FIR, and the bail granted to other accused supported their release on bail.
pp. 4–603Law Applied
The petition was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the provision invoked for the High Court’s regular-bail jurisdiction.
pp. 2–3The prosecution arose under Sections 61(2)(a), 103(2), 238(a), 45(c), 55 and 239, read with Section 3(5), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
pp. 2–3, 6The order states no separate test for bail and cites no precedent; it assesses the case circumstances and makes release subject to conditions.
pp. 6–7Provisions in the judgment · 10 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483Section 183
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 61Section 103Section 238Section 45Section 55Section 239Section 3
04Reasoning
The Court considered that the petitioners were not named in the FIR and that the eyewitness’s statement implicating them was recorded only after their arrest.
pp. 4–7It also noted that the earlier-recorded statement of another witness did not name the petitioners or any assailant, and that other accused, including persons alleged to have participated in the incident or supplied weapons, had received bail.
pp. 4–7On these circumstances, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ request for regular bail should be granted, subject to conditions.
pp. 4–705Holding
The High Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioners be released on regular bail in S.C. No. 5017 of 2026.
pp. 6–7Each petitioner was required to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, attend hearings unless excused, refrain from threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses and from similar offences, and not leave the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission until disposal of the case.
pp. 6–7Original Court PDF
BASAVARAJU S. @ SHIVAvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
