The Karnataka High Court has granted regular bail to an accused in a serious arson case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, emphasizing that the absence of direct eyewitness testimony and unreliable dying declarations render the case insufficient to justify continued custody. This ruling reinforces the principle that bail must be the norm, not the exception, even in grave offences where evidence remains circumstantial and uncorroborated.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Munawar Ali, is accused in Crime No. 242/2025 registered by Marathahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences under Sections 109, 351(3), and 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The case arises from an alleged arson attack on a shed where the petitioner’s acquaintance, Ijul Haque, and two others were sleeping on the night of 15.05.2025. The victims suffered severe burn injuries, and Ijul Haque died on 18.05.2025 from 96% burn injuries.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on the intervening night of 15.05.2025 and 16.05.2025
- The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 17.05.2025 by Rasidul Haque, brother-in-law of the deceased
- According to the FIR, Rasidul Haque heard screams at approximately 4:00 a.m. on 16.05.2025 and found the victims severely burned
- Ijul Haque, upon regaining consciousness at around 7:30 a.m. on 16.05.2025, allegedly identified the petitioner as the perpetrator
- The petitioner was arrested on 22.05.2025 and has been in judicial custody since then
- The charge sheet was filed after investigation, invoking Section 103 of BNS 2023 due to the death of the victim
- The two surviving witnesses, CW2 and CW3, stated in their police statements that they did not see who set the fire and did not know the identity of the accused
- The petitioner has no prior criminal record, is married, and has family in Bengaluru
- The trial has not yet commenced
Procedural History
- 15.05.2025: Alleged incident occurs during the night
- 16.05.2025: Victims rescued and taken to Sakra Hospital, later transferred to Victoria Hospital
- 17.05.2025: FIR registered by Rasidul Haque
- 18.05.2025: Deceased Ijul Haque dies from burn injuries
- 22.05.2025: Petitioner arrested and remanded to judicial custody
- 12.01.2026: Bail application rejected by the Court of LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Crl.Misc.No.26009/2025)
- 05.06.2026: Criminal Petition No. 1589 of 2026 filed before the Karnataka High Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with S.C.No.1211/2025, pending before the Sessions Court, on the grounds that the evidence against him is weak, unreliable, and insufficient to justify continued detention.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the prosecution’s evidence, consisting primarily of an uncorroborated dying declaration and the absence of direct eyewitness testimony, is sufficient to deny bail in a case involving serious offences under the BNS, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the prosecution’s case rests entirely on the statement of the first informant, who is a relative of the deceased, and the alleged dying declaration of Ijul Haque. However, the medical condition of the deceased - suffering 96% burn injuries - makes it medically improbable that he was conscious and capable of making a coherent identification at 7:30 a.m. on 16.05.2025. The two surviving witnesses explicitly denied witnessing the act. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is a settled family man, and the trial has not yet begun. The court should apply the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception.
For the Respondent
The State, through the HCGP, contended that the gravity of the offence - culminating in death by arson - demands strict scrutiny. The identification by the deceased, even if made shortly before death, constitutes a strong piece of evidence. The accused had a prior dispute with the deceased, indicating motive. Granting bail in such cases could risk witness tampering and undermine public confidence in the justice system.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidentiary record and found the prosecution’s case to be critically deficient in establishing direct participation by the petitioner. The Court noted that the two surviving witnesses, CW2 and CW3, did not identify the petitioner as the perpetrator and in fact stated they did not know who committed the crime. The sole incriminating statement came from the first informant, who is a close relative of the deceased, and the alleged dying declaration.
"It would be difficult to believe that he had informed the first informant that petitioner was the cause for the incident in question. Except the statement of first informant, there is no material to show that the deceased Ijul Haque had gained consciousness and he was in a position to speak at that point of time after the incident in question had taken place."
The Court further observed that the deceased’s 96% burn injuries rendered the possibility of a lucid, voluntary, and reliable dying declaration highly improbable. The Court emphasized that while Section 103 of BNS 2023 carries severe punishment, the grant of bail is not contingent upon the nature of the offence alone but on the strength of the evidence against the accused. The Court held that the prosecution had not made out a prima facie case sufficient to justify continued custody.
The Court also noted the petitioner’s lack of criminal history, his settled family life in Bengaluru, and the fact that the trial had not commenced. The apprehension of witness tampering was deemed manageable through appropriate bail conditions.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail in S.C.No.1211/2025 pending before the Court of LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for offences under Sections 109, 351(3), and 103 of the BNS, 2023. The following conditions apply: (a) execution of a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be a local surety; (b) regular appearance before the Trial Court unless exempted; (c) no threat or tampering with prosecution witnesses; (d) no commission of similar offences; and (e) no departure from the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission until disposal of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Dying Declarations Require Corroboration and Medical Feasibility
- Practitioners must challenge the admissibility of dying declarations where the victim’s physical condition makes communication improbable
- Medical records must be scrutinized to assess whether the victim was lucid, coherent, and capable of making a reliable statement
- Courts cannot rely on dying declarations as standalone evidence in the absence of corroborative material
Bail Cannot Be Denied Solely on Gravity of Offence
- The nature of the offence under BNS 2023, even if punishable by life imprisonment, does not automatically disqualify an accused from bail
- The Court must assess the strength of evidence, not merely the potential punishment
- The presumption of innocence remains intact until conviction, and prolonged pre-trial detention requires compelling justification
Absence of Direct Eyewitness Testimony Weakens Prosecution’s Case
- When surviving witnesses deny witnessing the act, the prosecution’s case becomes heavily dependent on hearsay or unreliable statements
- Courts must be cautious in granting custody where the only incriminating evidence is from a non-eyewitness or a relative of the victim
- Defence counsel should systematically highlight gaps in eyewitness testimony to strengthen bail applications
