Karnataka HC Leaves 4 Murder Accused on Bail, Citing No Complaint of Witness Threats or Police Report of Bail Breach

The petitioner/complainant challenged the Sessions Court’s orders granting bail to accused Nos. 1–4 in a case alleging murder and related offences under Sections 103(1), 238, 238(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the accused killed the deceased, disposed of his body in an underground tunnel, and disposed of his motorcycle in a lake; the case rested on circumstantial evidence, and the body and motorcycle were allegedly recovered at the accused persons’ instance.

The petitioner sought cancellation of bail, alleging that the Sessions Court had overlooked material evidence and that the accused were threatening prosecution witnesses.

The High Court considered the challenge under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439(2) of the CrPC) provides the basis for seeking cancellation of bail.

The Court treated the absence of demonstrated breach of bail conditions or substantiated witness intimidation as relevant to the cancellation request.

It also stated that, in a circumstantial-evidence case, the prosecution must establish the chain of circumstances at trial; alleged recoveries must be proved in accordance with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

A bail or cancellation proceeding is not a mini-trial, and matters such as post-mortem and FSL reports are to be proved at trial.

The Court found that the alleged recovery of the body and motorcycle, and the evidentiary significance of the post-mortem and FSL reports, remained matters for proof at trial.

The petitioner had not lodged a complaint concerning the alleged threats, and the Investigating Officer had not reported any breach of bail conditions.

Given the circumstantial nature of the prosecution case and the Sessions Court’s consideration of the circumstances and gravity of the offence, the Court found no basis to interfere with the bail orders.

It clarified that its observations were limited to disposal of the petition.