Karnataka High CourtCriminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Karnataka HC Grants Bail To Two Murder-Case Accused Not Named In FIR, Citing Eyewitness Statement Recorded After Their Arrest

BASAVARAJU S. @ SHIVAv.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka HC Grants Bail To Two Murder-Case Accused Not Named In FIR, Citing Eyewitness Statement Recorded After Their Arrest. BASAVARAJU S. @ SHIVA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

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.

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioners be released on regular bail in S.C. No. 5017 of 2026.

It also directed

Each 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.

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. 2–3

The 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. 3–6

The petitioners were not named in the FIR and were arrested during the investigation on 17 December 2025.

pp. 3–6

The 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. 3–6

The Court also noted that accused Nos. 7 and 8, and the alleged supplier of the weapons, had been granted bail.

pp. 3–6

02Issues

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, 6

ii.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. 4–6

03Law 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. 2–3

The 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, 6

The order states no separate test for bail and cites no precedent; it assesses the case circumstances and makes release subject to conditions.

pp. 6–7

Provisions 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. 4–7

It 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. 4–7

On these circumstances, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ request for regular bail should be granted, subject to conditions.

pp. 4–7

05Holding

The High Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioners be released on regular bail in S.C. No. 5017 of 2026.

pp. 6–7

Each 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. 6–7
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

BASAVARAJU S. @ SHIVAvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · October 30, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment