Karnataka High CourtCriminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Two Accused Get Bail In Shivamogga Case Alleging Victims Were Taken From Court And Assaulted, As Karnataka HC Cites Simple Injuries And Co-Accused’s Bail

MUSTAFA ALI BAIGv.STATE OF KARNATAKA

Two Accused Get Bail In Shivamogga Case Alleging Victims Were Taken From Court And Assaulted, As Karnataka HC Cites Simple Injuries And Co-Accused’s Bail. MUSTAFA ALI BAIG vs STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, notwithstanding the allegations, invocation of KCOCA, and their criminal antecedents.

The court held

The Court allowed both criminal petitions and directed that the petitioners be released on bail in Special C.C. No. 1047 of 2026, subject to conditions.

It also directed

Each petitioner must execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; attend trial unless exempted; refrain from threatening or tampering with witnesses and from similar offences; remain within the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission; and report to Jayanagar Police Station on the first Sunday of each month, between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., for one year from 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 Special C.C. No. 1047 of 2026, arising from Crime No. 84 of 2025.

pp. 3–6

The prosecution alleged that, on 22 September 2025, the petitioners and other accused abducted and assaulted two victims, threatened them, and demanded ₹50,000; the victims sustained simple injuries.

pp. 3–6

The FIR was lodged on 24 September 2025.

pp. 3–6

After the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (KCOCA) was invoked, a charge sheet was filed against 15 persons.

pp. 3–6

The petitioners’ bail application before the Special Court was rejected on 14 July 2026.

pp. 3–6

The State noted the petitioners’ criminal antecedents, while the petitioners relied on the fact that similarly placed accused had been granted bail.

pp. 6–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, notwithstanding the allegations, invocation of KCOCA, and their criminal antecedents.

pp. 3, 6–7

ii.2. Whether the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused supported granting bail to the petitioners.

p. 7

03Law Applied

The Court considered the petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which provides for the High Court’s and Court of Session’s power to grant bail.

pp. 3–4

The prosecution included offences 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.

pp. 3–4

The order identifies no precedent or specific statutory test for bail under KCOCA; its stated considerations were the nature of the allegations, the injuries, completion of the investigation, and parity with co-accused.

pp. 5–7

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

KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIMES ACTS, 2000 Section 3

04Reasoning

The Court weighed the allegations against the circumstances that both victims had sustained 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 KCOCA had been invoked on that basis, the Court also noted that other accused facing similar allegations and having criminal antecedents had been granted bail by the Trial Court.

pp. 6–7

Considering these factors together, it held that the petitioners’ request for bail should be allowed, subject to conditions.

p. 7

05Holding

The Court allowed both criminal petitions and directed that the petitioners be released on bail in Special C.C. No. 1047 of 2026, subject to conditions.

pp. 7–8

Each petitioner must execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; attend trial unless exempted; refrain from threatening or tampering with witnesses and from similar offences; remain within the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission; and report to Jayanagar Police Station on the first Sunday of each month, between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., for one year from release.

pp. 8–9
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

MUSTAFA ALI BAIGvsSTATE 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