Karnataka High CourtCriminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Men Allegedly Taken From Shivamogga Court And Assaulted; Karnataka HC Bails Two Accused, Citing Simple Injuries And Delayed FIR

PRATHAP @ SALEEMv.STATE OF KARNATAKA

Men Allegedly Taken From Shivamogga Court And Assaulted; Karnataka HC Bails Two Accused, Citing Simple Injuries And Delayed FIR. PRATHAP @ SALEEM vs STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners should be enlarged on regular bail in the case involving allegations under the BNS and KCOCA.

The court held

The High Court allowed both petitions and directed that the petitioners be released on bail in Special C.C. No. 1047/2026.

It also directed

Conditions 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.

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. 3–6

The 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. 3–6

The victims sustained simple injuries; the FIR was lodged on 24 September 2025.

pp. 4–6

After 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. 4–6

The petitioners’ bail application had been rejected by the Special Court.

pp. 4–6

The High Court noted that other similarly placed accused had been granted bail.

p. 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners should be enlarged on regular bail in the case involving allegations under the BNS and KCOCA.

pp. 3–7

ii.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. 5–7

03Law Applied

The petitions were considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.

p. 3

The 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, 8

The 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. 7–9

Provisions 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 provisionsSection 61Section 115Section 118Section 140Section 189Section 190Section 191Section 308Section 351Section 352

KARNATAKA 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. 5–6

Although 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. 6–7

In view of these circumstances, it found that the petitioners’ request warranted a favourable response, subject to appropriate safeguards.

pp. 6–7

05Holding

The High Court allowed both petitions and directed that the petitioners be released on bail in Special C.C. No. 1047/2026.

pp. 7–8

Conditions 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. 8–9
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

PRATHAP @ SALEEMvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · November 05, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment