01Facts
The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos. 7 and 13, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from Crime No. 84/2025.
pp. 3–6The prosecution alleged that on 22 September 2025 the accused confronted two victims, forcibly took them to another location, assaulted and threatened them, and demanded ₹50,000.
pp. 3–6The victims sustained simple injuries; the FIR was lodged on 24 September 2025.
pp. 4–6After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against 15 persons for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (KCOCA).
pp. 4–6The petitioners’ bail application had been rejected by the Special Court.
pp. 4–6The High Court noted that other similarly placed accused had been granted bail.
p. 702Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioners should be enlarged on regular bail in the case involving allegations under the BNS and KCOCA.
pp. 3–7ii.2. Whether the nature of the allegations, the injuries, the completion of the investigation, and the grant of bail to similarly placed accused supported release on bail subject to conditions.
pp. 5–703Law Applied
The petitions were considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.
p. 3The alleged offences were under Sections 118(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 140(2), 351(2), 352, 61(2), 308(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(4) and 3(3) of KCOCA.
p. 3, 8The order cites no precedent and does not set out a separate statutory test for bail under KCOCA; it assesses the circumstances of the case and makes release subject to conditions.
pp. 7–9Provisions in the judgment · 13 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 10 provisions
Section 61Section 115Section 118Section 140Section 189Section 190Section 191Section 308Section 351Section 352KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIMES ACTS, 2000 Section 3
04Reasoning
The Court considered the allegations alongside the fact that the victims had suffered only simple injuries, the FIR was lodged nearly two days after the incident, and the investigation had concluded with the filing of the charge sheet.
pp. 5–6Although the State pointed to the petitioners’ criminal antecedents and the invocation of KCOCA, the Court also noted that other accused facing similar allegations and having criminal antecedents had been granted bail.
pp. 6–7In view of these circumstances, it found that the petitioners’ request warranted a favourable response, subject to appropriate safeguards.
pp. 6–705Holding
The High Court allowed both petitions and directed that the petitioners be released on bail in Special C.C. No. 1047/2026.
pp. 7–8Conditions included execution of a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 each with two sureties for the like sum, regular attendance at trial, non-interference with witnesses, refraining from similar offences, remaining within the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission, and reporting to the Jayanagar Police Station on the first Sunday of each month for one year after release.
pp. 8–9Original Court PDF
PRATHAP @ SALEEMvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
