Financing and Arming a Conspiracy to Kill Is More Grave Than Direct Participation: Karnataka High Court Denies Bail in Heinous Murder Case

Karnataka High Court dismissed a batch of bail appeals , reiterating that individuals accused of providing funds and deadly weapons for the execution of a murder conspiracy cannot be granted bail merely because co-accused have been released.

Justice G. Basavaraja, while upholding the trial court's rejection of bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, observed that the involvement of the appellants in financing and facilitating the murder is prima facie established and “more grave than direct involvement” in the commission of the crime.

“Providing Finance and Weapons for a Murder Plot Shows Deeper Criminality”: Court Upholds Bail Rejection for Conspirators

The appellants—Accused Nos. 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 20—sought bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, challenging the rejection of their applications by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, in Special Case No. 346/2025.

The core allegations, as per the charge sheet, involved a premeditated conspiracy to eliminate one Santhosh Kumar @ Kanuma, allegedly due to long-standing enmity. Though the appellants were not named in the FIR, their roles in the murder plot emerged during investigation and were detailed in Column 17 of the charge sheet.

The prosecution alleged that:

“The present accused played a critical role by financing the execution and providing long knives (‘machhus’) to the assailants. They are directly responsible for enabling the fatal assault.”

The trial court had recorded that:

“Even though the present accused may not have directly participated in the actual commission of the offence, their role in providing finance and weapons for eliminating an individual is more grave than direct involvement.”

Justice Basavaraja concurred with this observation, holding that such acts demonstrate criminal intent and complicity of a serious order and are sufficient to disentitle the accused from bail at this stage.

Parity in Bail Cannot Override Material Allegations: Co-Accused Bail Irrelevant in Light of Distinct Roles

The appellants argued for parity in bail, citing bail orders granted to co-accused Ravi @ Hadadi Ravi (A17) and Vinayaka @ Vinay (A15) by Coordinate Benches in Criminal Petition No.12929/2025 (26.09.2025) and Criminal Petition No.13836/2025 (17.11.2025).

The High Court rejected this contention, stating:

“Though a Coordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to A17 and A15, considering the specific and graver roles of these appellants in facilitating the murder, parity cannot be invoked as a blanket right.”

The Court emphasized that bail jurisprudence does not operate on mechanical parity, particularly in heinous offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, where subjective satisfaction based on individual role is paramount.

Murder as a Result of Organised Criminal Conspiracy: Legal Framework Invoked

The case involved multiple statutory provisions:

• Sections 61(2), 103(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 238(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), dealing with criminal conspiracy, aiding, abetment and organized crime.
• Sections 27(1) and 5 of the Arms Act, 1959, for unauthorised possession and supply of weapons.
• Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste community and the murder was alleged to be caste-based.

Justice Basavaraja clarified that:

“There is considerable force in the submission that the present appellants had a strategic role in the plot. The materials, including statements of eyewitnesses (CW27 to CW44) and digital evidence, clearly point to pre-meditated orchestration facilitated by these appellants.”

Appellants’ Claim of SC/ST Membership No Ground for Exclusion from PoA Act

The defence had also argued that some of the appellants themselves belonged to Scheduled Castes, and thus the SC/ST Act should not apply to them. The Court did not accept this line of reasoning at the bail stage, noting that:

“Whether the PoA Act is applicable to each accused will be decided during trial. The prima facie material on record, including the intent, caste identity of the victim, and the manner of execution, satisfies the requirements of invoking the SC/ST Act at this stage.”

Bail Denied on Ground of Gravity and Risk to Witnesses

After analysing the case records and charge sheet, the High Court concluded:

“There are prima facie materials to attract the commission of alleged offence against these appellants. The alleged offences are heinous in nature and punishable with death or life imprisonment. The likelihood of witness tampering or influence is real.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed all four connected appeals, affirming the trial court’s order of bail rejection under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Date of Decision: 20.11.2025