Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
M.G.UMA
Sharanappa, S/o. Bandappa Dannur – Appellant
Versus
State, Through, Wadi Railway Police Station, Dist. Kalaburagi (Represented By, Addl. State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka) – Respondent
ORDER :
M.G. UMA, J.
The petitioner being accused No.3 in Crime No.32/2025 of Wadi Railway Police Station, Dist: Kalaburagi, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103 and 238 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (for short ‘ BNS 2023’) now pending in C.C.No.4722/2025 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNS S 2023’), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant- Rajeshwari D/o: Hanumanth Dulli.
2. Heard Sri. Santosh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Siddaling P.Patil, learned Addl. Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 483 of BNSS ?”
4. My answer to the above point is in the ‘Affirmative’ for the following:
REASONS
5. Initially, a missing complaint came to be filed by the sister of the deceased. Later, a dead body of a male was found near
The court emphasized the right to liberty of the accused when no direct evidence links them to the crime.
The court establishes that pre-trial detention requires substantial evidence of intent to justify continued custody; liberty must be safeguarded.
When the investigation is complete and the final report filed, continued pre-trial detention is generally unnecessary unless specific grounds exist, permitting the grant of regular bail subject to st....
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when conditions are met, ensuring fair trial rights.
An accused is entitled to bail when the matter is settled between parties, reducing the necessity for continued detention.
The court emphasized the principle that bail may be granted with conditions to prevent tampering with evidence, while considering the severity of charges against the accused involved.
The court determined that the applicant was entitled to bail due to lack of evidence supporting the charges against him.
The court established the entitlement to bail under Section 483, affirming rights against unlawful detention when the investigation is complete and no criminal antecedents are present.
The court denied bail due to the gravity of the charges, ongoing investigation, and potential risks of evidence tampering by the accused.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
