Regular bail granted where post-mortem attributed death to electrocution and investigation was substantially complete.

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 103(1), 238(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The case arose after Kariyappa’s family reported him missing; CCTV footage showed him going towards the accused persons’ property on the night of 25 July 2026.

The prosecution alleged that the accused stated they had killed Kariyappa and buried his body.

The material before the Court indicated that Kariyappa had accidentally contacted a live electric wire drawn across the accused persons’ agricultural land, after which the accused allegedly buried his body.

The body was later exhumed; the post-mortem report attributed death to electrocution and recorded no other external injuries.

The petitioners had been arrested between 1 and 7 August 2026, and their bail applications before the Sessions Court had been rejected on 31 August 2026.

The petitions were considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides the relevant basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 103(1), 238(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court did not cite any precedent or set out a broader bail test; it assessed the available case material, the post-mortem findings, the progress of the investigation and the petitioners’ custody.

The Court noted that the material indicated Kariyappa died after accidentally coming into contact with a live electric wire on the accused persons’ property, and that the post-mortem report recorded electrocution as the cause of death with no other external injuries.

It also considered that the body had been buried after the incident, that the major portion of the investigation was complete, and that the petitioners—agriculturists—were in custody.

On those circumstances, the Court concluded that their applications for regular bail should be allowed, while imposing conditions to secure their attendance and prevent interference with the prosecution.

Each petitioner was required to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; attend trial dates unless excused; refrain from threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses or involving themselves in similar offences; and not leave the trial court’s jurisdiction without its permission until disposal of the case.