Simple Injuries and Absence of Criminal Antecedents Justify Bail: Karnataka HC

Granting relief to three youths accused of assault and wrongful confinement, the Karnataka High Court emphasized that the lack of prior criminal records and the simple nature of injuries sustained by the victim warrant the exercise of discretionary power under the new criminal procedure framework.

A single-judge bench of Justice Tyagaraja N. Inavally adjudicated upon two connected petitions filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C and Section 483 of the BNSS. The Court was tasked with determining whether the petitioners, who were allegedly involved in a dispute over a romantic relationship, should be released on regular bail despite the seriousness of the charges involving assault with weapons.

Court's Rationale on Bail Entitlement and Simple Injuries

The Court observed that the injuries sustained by the complainant were classified as simple in nature according to the wound certificate. Furthermore, the Court noted that the weapon involved had already been seized and the petitioners had no history of criminal activity.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Moreover, there is no material forth coming on the respondent to show any antecedents of the petitioners that they involved in any case earlier. This would show that the petitioners are not habitual offenders. Further, as per the letter of the IO along with the wound certificate issued to the learned Prosecutor, it is clear that the injuries allegedly sustained by the complainant/ victim are simple in nature. Hence, at this stage there is no reason to believe that there is any case against the petitioners for offences punishable u/s 109 BNSS. Moreover, even if it is accepted that there is case against the petitioners for the offence punishable u/s 109 of BNSS, the said offence is not punishable with death."

Directions Issued to the Petitioners

While allowing the petitions, the Court imposed stringent conditions to ensure the integrity of the ongoing investigation. The Court has following directions:

"The petitioners are enlarged on bail on their executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, subject to the conditions that:

i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate and also before the trial Court as and when directed.

ii) They shall appear before the respondent police as and when required and they shall assist the IO in further investigation of the case.

iii) They shall not commit similar offence or any other offence during the pendency of the case.

iv) They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and hamper further investigation of the case in any manner."

Background:

The prosecution alleged that the complainant was in a long-term relationship with a relative. However, the accused No. 2 allegedly began forcing the woman to love him. On April 13, 2026, the accused persons allegedly lured the complainant to a village under the pretext of a talk, where they used a knife and a belt to assault him. It was further alleged that the complainant was detained until night and his mother was informed of the assault over a phone call.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that one of the petitioners was not even named in the First Information Report (FIR) and was only implicated upon arrest. They further contended that since the investigation had progressed and the petitioners were in custody, their continued detention was unnecessary. The High Court, after noting that the State failed to file written objections despite multiple opportunities, accepted the petitioners' grounds and ordered their release on bail.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.P No. 200642 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 200680 of 2026
NeutralCitation: 2026:KHC-K:3881
Case Title: Vishal S/O Shrikanth Degaonkar v. The State of Karnataka (and connected matter)
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri Rateeshkumar Sharanbasappa, Advocate; Sri Santosh Patil, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, HCGP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KAR) 183