Karnataka High Court grants bail to accused alleged to have falsified forensic report in insurance-murder case

The prosecution alleged that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 caused the death of Sandeep K. Manjaragi, and that the petitioner, Accused No. 10, issued a tampered report from a government scientific agency to screen evidence of the crime.

The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

After the investigation was completed and a charge-sheet filed, he sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), contending that his alleged role was limited to issuing the report and that continued custody was unnecessary.

The State opposed bail, citing prima facie material and the risk of witness tampering.

1. Whether the petitioner, Accused No. 10, should be enlarged on regular bail in light of the nature of the allegation against him and the completed investigation.

2. Whether the State’s concerns about possible witness tampering or interference with the prosecution warranted refusal of bail.

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The alleged offences were identified in the order as Sections 103(1), 238(b), read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court applied no cited precedent or express multi-part bail test; its stated considerations included the petitioner’s specific alleged role, the status of the investigation, his residence, and the possibility of managing risks through bail conditions.

The Court distinguished the petitioner’s alleged conduct from the principal allegations against Accused Nos. 1 and 2, who were alleged to have administered poison to the deceased.

The petitioner’s alleged involvement was limited to issuing a tampered scientific report, and whether he assisted in tampering with that report was a matter for trial.

Since the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, the Court found that the petitioner’s continued custody was not required on the material considered.

It also noted that he was a permanent resident and could be subject to conditions addressing the State’s concerns about witness interference.

Bail was subject to conditions that he not threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses, attend the trial court as required, and not engage in similar or other offences; breach of any condition could lead the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.