Man Accused Of Killing Father’s Killer Denied Bail By Karnataka HC, As 14 Months’ Custody Was No Special Ground

The petitioner, the sole accused, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a murder case arising from Crime No. 113/2025.

The prosecution alleged that, motivated by a grudge arising from the deceased’s killing of the petitioner’s father in 2008, the petitioner attacked the deceased with a sword on 30 August 2025, causing fatal injuries.

The petitioner had been in custody since 31 August 2025.

The charge sheet had been filed, the Sessions Court had earlier rejected bail on 24 December 2025, and the trial had commenced, with some prosecution witnesses examined.

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the BNSS, which provides for the High Court’s and Court of Session’s power to grant bail.

The alleged offences were punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act.

In assessing the application, the Court applied the principles that a bail hearing is not a mini-trial and that the court should not determine guilt or finally assess the evidence at that stage; the trial court must evaluate the evidence.

The Court also considered the gravity of the alleged offence, the material said to implicate the accused, the progress of the trial, and the stated risk of witness tampering.

The Court noted the prosecution’s allegation of motive and the presence of eyewitnesses, as well as the submission that material witnesses had supported the prosecution.

Although the petitioner relied on a hostile witness and asserted discrepancies in witness testimony, the Court held that assessing those matters would amount to conducting a mini-trial, particularly after the trial had commenced.

It also considered that the Sessions Court had previously refused bail, the petitioner had not first sought bail from the trial court on the basis of the evidence recorded, and the offence carried the possibility of life imprisonment or death.

The Court concluded that the period in custody, without a special ground warranting release, did not justify bail at that stage.

It left the petitioner at liberty to apply for bail before the trial court, if so advised, and directed that its observations should not influence the trial court’s consideration of the case.