Karnataka High Court grants bail after finding accused was not given a chance to cross-examine witnesses during nearly five years in custody

Sathanoor Police registered a case against unknown persons following a complaint and, during investigation, arrested the appellant on 11 February 2022.

He remained in judicial custody while facing charges under Sections 302, 201 and 202 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The appellant appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against the Sessions Court’s rejection of his bail application.

He submitted that he had been detained for over four years and eight months, the case rested on circumstantial evidence, and the five witnesses examined had not been made available for cross-examination.

The High Court reviewed the deposition records and found that the trial court had recorded the witnesses’ evidence without providing the accused’s counsel an opportunity to cross-examine them.

Whether the appellant should be granted bail in light of his prolonged pre-trial detention, the circumstantial nature of the prosecution case, and the circumstances of the evidence recorded to date.

Whether the trial court’s failure to provide the accused’s counsel an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses was inconsistent with the applicable Supreme Court guidelines.

Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act provides for an appeal against an order concerning bail under the Act.

The High Court considered bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, and referred to Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 2 SCC 381, directing the trial court to comply with the Supreme Court’s guidelines when recording prosecution evidence.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the period of detention, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the appellant’s antecedents.

The Court noted that the FIR did not name the appellant and that the prosecution case was circumstantial.

It also found from the deposition copies that five witnesses had been examined without an opportunity for the accused’s counsel to cross-examine them, and concluded that the trial court had not complied with the Ashok guidelines.

Considering this procedural concern alongside the appellant’s detention of more than four years and eight months, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail.

The appellant was ordered released on a self-bond of ₹1,00,000, subject to conditions that he not tamper with or threaten prosecution witnesses and attend every hearing.

The trial court was directed to comply with the Ashok guidelines when recording prosecution evidence.