Bail applications in serious criminal cases require careful consideration of evidence and their implications for witness safety, as confinement remains the default in cases involving severe charges.

ORDER :

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.

This petition is filed by accused Nos.6 and 7 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Spl.C.C.No.2055/2024 (Crime No.353/2024 of Banaswadi Police Station) pending on the file of Prl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 37 , 120-B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 201, 302, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC , Section 27 (3) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Section 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4) of Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000 (for short ‘KCOCA’).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl.SPP for respondent – State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that as per averments of the complaint filed by the wife of deceased, she came to know about the incident through Manu (CW.2) that 4 to 5 unknown persons assaulted the deceased. The said Manu (CW.2) is an eye witness to the incident, but he has disclosed the names of assailants to wife of the deceased. In the spot mahazar as well as requisition for P.M. examination, there is no mention of any assailants and assault is stated to be by unknown persons. CW.2 in his statement recorded on 07.05.2024 has disclosed the names of the assailants and in his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 22.05.2025 has named accused persons and also stated that he informed the incident to the complainant. Considering the fact that CW.2 has not informed the names of assailants to the complainant itself indicate that he was not knowing the names of assailants at the time of incident. In the inquest mahazar name of accused No.10 – Pavan has also been stated as assailants and he has been granted bail. The CCTV footage stated to have been collected has not been furnished to CW.2. Petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents and no case is pending against them and therefore, there is no compliance of Section 2(d) of KCOCA. The test identification parade has not been conducted. Filing of more than one charge sheet is required for invoking provisions of KCOCA. On that point he placed reliance on a decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.A.No.1129/2021 c/w Crl.A.Nos. 1103/2021 and 1264/2021 DD 05.10.2021).

4. The accused person who is in judicial custody for two years alleged to have committed offence under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India (2024 INSC 604) wherein it is observed as under:

“21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.”

5. Petitioners are aged about 20 years and on that ground they are entitled for grant of bail. On that point he placed reliance on the decision of co-ordinate Ben