Gravity of Offence Alone Not Ground to Deny Bail Where Co-Accused Are Released: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Under BNS

"Overt Acts Alleged Against Petitioners Are Similar to Those Already Granted Bail" –  Karnataka High Court, while dealing with serious charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), granted bail to three accused in a murder case, citing the principle of parity as the guiding basis. Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, sitting in the Criminal Jurisdiction, allowed Criminal Petition filed by accused Nos. 5, 7 and 11, holding that the gravity of the offence alone cannot be a reason to deny bail when co-accused with similar allegations are already out on bail.

This decision assumes significance as one of the first reported orders interpreting bail jurisprudence under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and offences under the newly enforced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which has replaced the Indian Penal Code.

Familial Revenge Leading to Brutal Group Assault

The case emanates from Crime No. 415/2024 registered at the Bharamasagara Police Station, Chitradurga, which culminated in S.C. No.105/2025. The prosecution alleges that the deceased, Manjunath, had married CW-17, daughter of accused Nos.1 and 2, against their wishes. On November 27, 2024, in a purported act of vengeance, a group of 15 accused allegedly assaulted Manjunath and his parents, leading to his death and grievous injuries to CW-1 and CW-2.

The charge sheet cited a collective assault involving various weapons — machetes, iron crowbars, size stones, and wooden repieces. The deceased was also noted to have a prior conviction under Section 306 IPC in a previous case involving abetment to suicide.

The petitioners herein — accused Nos.5, 7 and 11 — were charged under numerous sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita including Sections 191(2), 103(1), 351(2), 352, 115(2), and 329(4), many of which are punishable with death or life imprisonment. The specific allegation against the petitioners was of assaulting the deceased with wooden repieces and a crowbar, akin to the allegations against co-accused who had already been granted bail.

Legal Issues and Court's Observations: "Parity Must Prevail When Allegations Are Identical"

The key issue before the Court was whether bail could be granted in a case involving heinous offences, when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been enlarged on bail. The State strongly opposed the bail plea, emphasizing the serious nature of charges and presence of eyewitnesses.

However, Justice Amarannavar, after scrutinising the materials on record, notably the earlier orders in Criminal Petition Nos.12594/2025 and 503/2025, observed:

"Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 have been granted bail and the accusation against them is that accused No.2 with size stone, accused No.3 with iron crowbar and accused No.1 with machete, size stone and crowbar assaulted the deceased. The petitioners i.e., accused No.5 assaulted with wooden repiece, accused No.7 also assaulted with wooden repiece and accused No.11 also assaulted with wooden repiece and crowbar... The overt act alleged against the petitioners is similar to that of accused Nos.1 to 3 who have been granted bail."

Rejecting the prosecution’s argument that the seriousness of the offence necessitated continued detention, the Court emphasized the principle of parity, stating:

"When co-accused with specific and grave overt acts involving deadly weapons have been granted bail, similarly placed petitioners cannot be denied the same relief."

Detention Period, Volume of Evidence and No Antecedents Favoured Bail

The Court also noted that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 30.11.2024, and the charge sheet cited 79 witnesses, indicating a long-drawn trial. Crucially, there were no criminal antecedents, and the petitioners had undertaken not to tamper with evidence or delay the trial.

Referring to its earlier observation in co-accused's bail order, the Court reiterated:

"Considering the number of witnesses, the trial will take considerable time. The petitioners have undertaken to appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing and not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners."

Bail Conditions Imposed to Balance Liberty and Prosecution Interest

Allowing the petition, the Court imposed stringent bail conditions to safeguard the trial process:

• Execution of personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety each;
• Mandatory attendance before the trial court;
• No tampering with prosecution witnesses;
• Liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation of bail upon violation.

Justice Amarannavar concluded that continued incarceration was unwarranted when similarly placed accused were granted bail and the petitioners had satisfied the requirements for release under Section 483 BNSS.

Date of Decision: January 23, 2026