Bail Under BNS | Absence of Direct Allegations in Charge Sheet Justifies Bail : Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has underscored that the absence of direct allegations in a charge sheet and non-identification by eyewitnesses are sufficient grounds for granting bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This judgment reinforces the principle that bail cannot be denied merely on the basis of association with co-accused, particularly when the accused has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody for nearly a year.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Sri Ravi @ Ravikumar N.R., was arrested on 06.05.2025 in connection with Crime No. 95/2025 registered by Varuna Police Station, Mysuru. The case involves the murder of Karthik, a rowdy sheeter, who was allegedly assaulted by accused Nos. 1 to 5 on 05.05.2025. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No. 6 in the charge sheet filed for offences under Sections 103(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 238, and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Key Facts

• The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 05.05.2025 against Ananda and others for offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS.
• The petitioner was arrested on 06.05.2025 and remanded to judicial custody.
• The charge sheet, filed against seven accused, alleges a conspiracy to murder Karthik due to a personal vendetta involving accused Nos. 1 and 7.
• On 05.05.2025, accused Nos. 1, 3, and 5 allegedly arrived at the crime scene in a jeep belonging to the petitioner, who was purportedly driving it.
• The deceased, Karthik, sustained 14 injuries and died at the spot.
• The charge sheet does not allege that the petitioner assaulted the deceased or disembarked from the vehicle.
• CW.2 and CW.3, the alleged eyewitnesses, do not mention the petitioner’s presence at the crime scene.
• The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since 06.05.2025.
• Accused No. 7, who was similarly implicated, was granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No. 17735/2025 dated 20.02.2026.

Procedural History

• 05.05.2025: FIR registered under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS.
• 06.05.2025: Petitioner arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
• 21.01.2026: Bail application filed before the jurisdictional Sessions Court (S.C.No. 184/2025) was rejected.
• 20.02.2026: Accused No. 7 granted bail by Karnataka High Court in Crl.P.No. 17735/2025.
• 2026: Present Criminal Petition No. 3441 of 2026 filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought enlargement on regular bail in S.C.No. 184/2025, pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, arising out of Crime No. 95/2025.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether bail could be denied to the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC (Section 483 BNSS) when:

1. The charge sheet lacks direct allegations of his involvement in the assault;
2. Eyewitnesses do not identify him at the crime scene; and
3. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody for nearly a year.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• Absence of Direct Allegations: The charge sheet does not allege that the petitioner assaulted the deceased or disembarked from the vehicle.
• Non-Identification by Eyewitnesses: CW.2 and CW.3, the alleged eyewitnesses, do not mention the petitioner’s presence at the crime scene.
• No Criminal Antecedents: The petitioner has no prior criminal record and has been in custody since 06.05.2025.
• Comparative Relief: Accused No. 7, who was similarly implicated, was granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
• Prolonged Custody: The petitioner has been in custody for nearly a year without trial.

For the Respondent-State

• Role in Conspiracy: The petitioner allegedly drove the vehicle used by the assailants to reach the crime scene, thereby playing a vital role in the conspiracy.
• CCTV Evidence: The entire incident was recorded in CCTV footage, which allegedly shows the petitioner’s involvement.
• Gravity of Offence: The offence involves murder under Section 103(1) of BNS, justifying denial of bail.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the material on record and observed the following:

1. Absence of Direct Allegations: The charge sheet does not allege that the petitioner assaulted the deceased or disembarked from the vehicle. His role was limited to allegedly driving the vehicle used by the assailants.

2. Eyewitness Testimony: CW.2 and CW.3, the alleged eyewitnesses, do not mention the petitioner’s presence at the crime scene. This absence of identification weakens the prosecution’s case against him.

3. No Criminal Antecedents: The petitioner has no prior criminal record, and his prolonged custody of nearly a year without trial raises concerns of unjustified detention.

4. Precedent of Bail for Co-Accused: Accused No. 7, who was similarly implicated, was granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. This sets a precedent for parity in bail considerations.

5. Burden of Proof at Trial Stage: The Court noted that at the bail stage, the question is not whether the accused is guilty but whether there is prima facie evidence to justify continued detention. The absence of direct allegations and eyewitness identification does not meet this threshold.

"Undisputedly, petitioner has no other criminal antecedents. He is in custody from 06.05.2025 onwards. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 who are the assailants in the present case have also been arrested and remanded to the judicial custody. Accused No. 7 has been granted regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No. 17735/2025 dated 20.02.2026. It is not the case of the prosecution even in the charge sheet that the petitioner had got down from his vehicle and therefore, it is difficult to believe at this stage that his presence was found at the spot of crime."

The Court concluded that the prosecution’s case against the petitioner is weak at this stage, and his continued detention would be unjustified.

The Verdict

The Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner-accused No. 6 is enlarged on bail in S.C.No. 184/2025 pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum.
2. The petitioner shall appear regularly on all dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless exempted for valid reasons.
3. The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or threaten them directly or indirectly.
4. The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in the future.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely on Association

This judgment reinforces the principle that bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of association with co-accused, especially when:

• The charge sheet lacks direct allegations of involvement in the offence;
• Eyewitnesses do not identify the accused at the crime scene; and
• The accused has no criminal antecedents.

Practitioners should argue that mere presence at the scene or driving a vehicle used by assailants is insufficient to deny bail under Section 439 CrPC (Section 483 BNSS).

Eyewitness Testimony Is Crucial for Denial of Bail

• Courts are likely to scrutinize eyewitness testimony closely when deciding bail applications.
• If eyewitnesses do not identify the accused, the prosecution’s case weakens significantly.
• Defence counsel should highlight gaps in eyewitness accounts to secure bail for similarly situated accused.

Parity in Bail Considerations

• Where co-accused have been granted bail, courts are inclined to extend similar relief to other accused facing identical allegations.
• Practitioners should cite prior bail orders for co-accused to argue for parity.

Prolonged Custody Without Trial

• Courts are increasingly sensitive to prolonged detention without trial, especially for accused with no criminal antecedents.
• Defence counsel should emphasize the duration of custody and the lack of progress in trial to strengthen bail pleas.