- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7469 CRL.P No. 1062 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1062 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRINIVAS @ SEENA S/O OMKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT MAGENAHALLI VILLAGE SATANAKERE POST, KANNAKATTE ARISIKERE TALUK - 573 103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH .K., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION BANGALORE DISTRICT REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 01 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE ABOVE NAMED PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.5036/2021 (CRIME NO.259/2020) OF RESPONDENT HEBBAGODI POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 396 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AND PASS SUCH NECESSARY ORDER AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7469 CRL.P No. 1062 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.259 of 2020 of Hebbagodi Police Station, pending in SC No.5039 of 2021 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 396 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Murali Mohan. 2. Heard Sri K Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned High Court Government Pleader 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 439 of Cr.P.C.?” My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7469 CRL.P No. 1062 of 2025 R E A S O N S 4. The petitioner being accused No.3 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 13.10.2020 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Initially, FIR came to be registered against unknown persons. The complainant is the husband of the deceased. During investigation, accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended. Incriminating materials such as shirt, pant, dragger and knife were recovered at their instance. Their voluntary statements were recorded and on the basis of same, accused No.3 was apprehended. The material on record discloses that the dragger and the blood stained shirt were recovered at the instance of the present petitioner and accused No.4. Even though there are no eye witnesses to the incident, recovery of incriminating materials at the instance of the present petitioner assumes importance. 5. It is stated that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents, as similar case of dacoity was registered against him in Rajgopalnagar Police Station and he is also accused in a case under POCSO Act. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that the petitioner along with accused taking advantage of the fact that the deceased was alone in the house - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7469 CRL.P No. 1062 of 2025 gained entry into the house, assaulted her with dragger and caused her death and also robbed the chain, cash and thereby committed dacoity. The allegations are of serious nature and there are incriminating materials for having committed the offences. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to enlarge the petitioner on bail. It is not safe to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. 6. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/- CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13