The Karnataka High Court has affirmed that even in cases involving serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the grant of regular bail remains a viable remedy when custody has been prolonged and the accused has not fled or threatened witnesses. The judgment underscores that gravity of offence alone cannot override the presumption of innocence or justify indefinite pre-trial detention.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, S. Deepu, son of R. Shekar, aged 28, is accused in Crime No. 169/2025 registered by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, under Sections 109, 132, 121(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The case arose from an encounter between police and the petitioner during an attempt to apprehend him in connection with a separate incident.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was initially linked to Crime No. 99/2025 registered at JJ Nagar Police Station for an offence under Section 103 of BNS.
- On 15.06.2025, credible intelligence was received regarding the petitioner’s whereabouts.
- On 21.07.2025, police from Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station attempted to arrest the petitioner, who was accompanied by Accused No. 2.
- The petitioner allegedly brandished a knife and resisted arrest despite warnings.
- During the confrontation, CW-4, a police officer, fired from a service pistol, striking the petitioner’s left leg.
- The petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized for an extended period.
- One police officer sustained simple injuries.
- The petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2025 and remanded to judicial custody.
- The charge sheet in Crime No. 169/2025 was filed after investigation.
- The petitioner was arraigned as Accused No. 1 in the charge sheet.
Procedural History
- 15.06.2025: First information received by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station.
- 21.07.2025: Petitioner arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
- 25.02.2026: Bail application (Crl. Misc. No. 11112/2025) dismissed by the Trial Court.
- 05.06.2026: Criminal Petition No. 5214/2026 filed before the Karnataka High Court under Section 483 of BNS, seeking regular bail.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail in SC No. 1567/2025, pending before the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, subject to reasonable conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the gravity of offences under Sections 109, 132, 121(1) read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023, coupled with an alleged attack on police, justifies continued pre-trial detention when the accused has been in custody for over eight months, has not tampered with evidence, and has suffered serious injuries during arrest.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner was not the initial aggressor but was attempting to evade arrest in a separate matter. The use of lethal force by police was disproportionate, and the petitioner’s injuries indicate he was not a threat at the time of firing. The charge sheet has been filed, and there is no allegation of witness tampering or flight risk. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that bail should not be denied merely on the basis of the nature of the offence. The petitioner’s prolonged custody without trial warranted relief.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the offences under BNS are serious, involving attempt to murder public servants and waging war against the state. The petitioner’s resistance to lawful arrest with a weapon constitutes a grave threat to public order. The fact that he was involved in two separate incidents indicates a pattern of criminal conduct. Granting bail, it was argued, would undermine the authority of law enforcement and set a dangerous precedent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the incident, the duration of custody, and the absence of any allegation of witness intimidation or attempt to flee. It noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 21.07.2025 - over eight months - and that the charge sheet had been filed. The Court emphasized that the BNS, while codifying serious offences, does not eliminate the constitutional right to bail under Article 21.
"The fact that the accused sustained grievous injuries during the encounter, and that the prosecution has not alleged any subsequent threat to witnesses or attempt to tamper with evidence, militates against the notion of a flight risk or danger to public order."
The Court distinguished this case from those involving organized crime, terrorism, or repeated offences, noting that the petitioner’s conduct, while unlawful, was situational and not part of a larger conspiracy. The Court also observed that the injuries to the police officer were simple, and the use of a service pistol was an extreme measure taken after warnings were ignored. The Court held that the presumption of innocence remains intact until conviction, and prolonged custody without trial must be justified by compelling reasons beyond the mere seriousness of the charge.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in SC No. 1567/2025, subject to the following conditions: (a) execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of like amount; (b) regular appearance before the Trial Court on all hearing dates unless exempted; (c) no threat or tampering with prosecution witnesses; (d) no commission of similar offences in future; and (e) no departure from the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission until final disposal of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Custody Duration Can Tip the Balance in Bail Decisions
- Prolonged pre-trial detention, especially beyond six months after charge sheet filing, must be weighed heavily against the presumption of innocence.
- Courts must assess whether continued custody serves a legitimate purpose or merely penalizes the accused before trial.
Resistance to Arrest Does Not Automatically Bar Bail
- Even where an accused resists arrest with a weapon, bail may still be granted if there is no evidence of flight risk, witness intimidation, or repeat criminality.
- The proportionality of police response and the nature of injuries sustained by the accused are relevant factors in assessing risk.
BNS Offences Are Not Per Se Non-Bailable
- The mere invocation of Sections 121(1) or 132 of BNS does not create an absolute bar to bail.
- Courts must apply the triple test - nature of accusation, likelihood of flight, and risk to witnesses - rather than defaulting to denial based on statutory severity.
