The Supreme Court of India has set aside an order of the Karnataka High Court that granted bail to a woman accused of murder, observing that the seriousness of the offence and the specific overt acts alleged against the accused were not adequately considered.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan held that granting bail solely on the grounds of gender and the duration of custody, without discussing the merits of the allegations in a case involving Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), was legally unsustainable.
The central legal issue before the Apex Court was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to a murder accused primarily on the basis that she is a woman and has been in custody for eleven months, despite the existence of serious allegations involving a lethal weapon.
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative, stating, “In the absence of any such discussion [regarding overt acts], merely because the first respondent is a lady, who is about forty-one years of age and was in custody for about eleven months, the relief of bail has been granted which is not correct.” Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the accused to surrender.
Background of the Case
The case originated from Crime No. 2 of 2024, registered at the Lakkavalli Police Station, Chikkamagaluru. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on January 3, 2024, by the appellant, Rekha K.C., regarding an incident involving the death of her husband, Naveen K.G.
According to the prosecution, the accused (Respondent No. 1, Jyothibai) and another individual were initially charged under Sections 504 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Following the death of the victim, the charges were escalated. The police investigation concluded with a charge sheet filed for offences punishable under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 504 (intentional insult), and 302 (murder) read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The accused was arrested on January 6, 2024, and remanded to judicial custody. She is currently facing trial in S.C. No. 40 of 2024 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru. Her bail application was initially rejected by the Trial Court on July 8, 2024.
However, on November 23, 2024, the High Court of Karnataka granted her bail in Criminal Petition No. 12115 of 2024. Aggrieved by this decision, the complainant, Rekha K.C., approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Appellant (Complainant): The appellant contended that the High Court’s order lacked necessary reasoning. The counsel argued that the facts of the case were “stark” and the overt acts attributed to the accused were specific and serious, leading to the death of the deceased due to injuries caused by a “machete.”
The appellant submitted that:
- Three witnesses examined in the trial had supported the prosecution’s case.
- The release of the accused would influence witnesses and hamper the prosecution.
- Being a woman in her forties is not a valid ground to grant bail for an offence under Section 302 IPC when the allegations are grave.
Counsel for the Respondent (Accused): The counsel for the accused supported the High Court’s order, arguing that the incident was an act of “self-defence.” It was submitted that the accused had already spent over one year and seventeen days as an undertrial, justifying the relief granted.
Counsel for the State: Notably, the Standing Counsel for the State submitted that she had instructions that the “impugned order is just and proper” and did not call for interference.
High Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted the specific reasons recorded by the High Court for granting bail:
- There were no eyewitnesses to the incident inside the house.
- The deceased had gone to the accused’s house while she was alone.
- A counter-case was registered against the deceased based on the accused’s statement.
- The accused is a lady aged 41 years with an unmarried daughter and no criminal antecedents.
- The investigation was complete.
The High Court had concluded that regarding the proviso to Section 437(1) of Cr.P.C., the bail prayer needed to be “answered affirmatively.”
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the High Court’s approach. The Bench observed that the High Court failed to discuss the overt acts alleged against the accused.
In its order, the Supreme Court stated:
“There is no discussion at all with regard to the overt-act that has been alleged against the first respondent herein. In the absence of any such discussion, merely because the first respondent is a lady… the relief of bail has been granted which is not correct.”
The Court found that the serious nature of the offence had been “brushed aside” by the High Court. The Bench clarified that it found “no reason whatsoever other than the aforesaid reasons” (gender and custody duration) in the High Court’s order, which were deemed insufficient given the gravity of the charge.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated November 23, 2024.
The Court directed Respondent No. 1 (Jyothibai) to surrender before the Court of First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, on or before December 31, 2025.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Rekha K.C. v. Jyothibai & Anr.
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. [To be assigned] of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13801/2025)
- Coram: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
