Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing

“Where direct overt acts, organised crime nexus and threat to witnesses exist, the principle of ‘bail is the rule’ yields to the interest of justice” – High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, speaking through Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, delivered a strong message on bail jurisprudence in cases involving organised crime and brutal murder, dismissing Criminal Petition filed by Accused Nos.6 and 7 under Section 439 CrPC / Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court refused to enlarge the petitioners on bail in a case arising out of Crime No.353 of 2024, Banaswadi Police Station, holding that serious overt acts, prima facie evidence under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 (KCOCA), and a credible eyewitness account militated against the grant of bail.

“Direct Participation in a Planned Murder by an Organised Crime Syndicate” - Court Finds Prima Facie Case of Conspiracy, Execution and Brutal Assault

The prosecution case, as accepted at the bail stage, disclosed that Accused No.3, a known rowdy sheeter, had formed an organised crime syndicate to assert control over areas including Banaswadi, Hennur and Ramamurthynagar. The murder of D. Karthigeyan was alleged to be the outcome of a criminal conspiracy executed with precision.

The Court recorded that Accused Nos.6 and 7 joined the syndicate with the intent to earn money through illegal means, and were not peripheral players. On 07.05.2024, they allegedly assembled with other accused in a rented room, tracked the deceased using prior information, and executed the murder with deadly weapons.

Justice Amarannavar noted: “It is the specific case of the prosecution that Accused Nos.6 and 7 were directly involved in the alleged crime and that they have assaulted the deceased with machete and knife respectively.”

“Eyewitness Account Cannot Be Discarded at Bail Stage” - CW.2 Consistently Named the Petitioners Before Police and Magistrate

A crucial factor in rejecting bail was the testimony of CW.2, an eyewitness who was travelling with the deceased at the time of the incident. The Court placed reliance on the consistency of his statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC and later under Section 164 CrPC.

The Court observed that CW.2 had specifically stated that: “Petitioner No.1 assaulted the deceased with a long chopper on the back and Petitioner No.2 assaulted with a knife on the head of the deceased.”

Rejecting the defence contention that the names of assailants were initially unknown, the Court held that such discrepancies cannot outweigh a consistent and detailed eyewitness account, particularly at the bail stage.

“31 Injuries Speak for the Brutality of the Crime” - Medical Evidence Reinforces Prosecution Case

The post-mortem report and inquest mahazar weighed heavily against the petitioners. The Court highlighted that the deceased had sustained 31 external injuries, and that the cause of death was due to multiple injuries.

Justice Amarannavar observed that: “The petitioners have assaulted with deadly weapons on the vital part of the body of the deceased… The nature and number of injuries demonstrate the gravity of the offence.”

The Court held that where the offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and the assault is of such brutality, liberal bail principles cannot be mechanically applied.

“KCOCA Properly Invoked – Confessional Statements Admissible” - Prima Facie Satisfaction Under Organised Crime Law

Repelling the argument that KCOCA was wrongly invoked, the Court found sufficient material to justify its application. It was noted that the petitioners had given confessional statements before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, which are admissible under Section 19 of KCOCA.

The Court recorded: “Petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 have admitted their participation in the crime… The said confession statement is admissible under Section 19 of the KCOCA.”

At the bail stage, this material was held sufficient to establish prima facie involvement in organised crime activity.

“Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different” - Bail to Co-Accused No Ground for Petitioners

The petitioners relied on the fact that Accused No.10 had been granted bail. The Court categorically rejected the plea of parity, clarifying:

“Accused No.10 who has been granted bail is not an assailant.”

Since Accused Nos.6 and 7 were attributed direct overt acts, the Court held that parity was wholly inapplicable.

“‘Bail Is the Rule’ Is Not Absolute”

Youth, Student Status and Lack of Antecedents Not Decisive

The petitioners invoked the Supreme Court’s observations in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024 INSC 604) and contended that youth, student status, and absence of criminal antecedents entitled them to bail.

The Court rejected this submission, holding in substance that: “Even the settled principle that ‘bail is the rule’ is not absolute. In cases involving organised crime, direct participation in murder, and threat to witnesses, bail can be denied.”

The apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding intimidation of CW.2 and other witnesses was accepted as a relevant and serious consideration.

The Karnataka High Court has drawn a clear line in bail jurisprudence, holding that organised crime murders involving conspiracy, direct overt acts, credible eyewitness testimony, admissible confessions and brutal violence do not merit indulgence at the bail stage.

By refusing bail to Accused Nos.6 and 7, the Court reaffirmed that personal liberty must yield where the collective interest of justice, witness protection, and societal safety are at stake.

Date of Decision: 10 December 2025