- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17800 CRL.P No. 5437 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5437 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SODDALA SATHYANARAYANA @ SATHYA S/O LATE ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT: 2/75, MAADHAVARAM VILLAGE, MANTRALAM MANDALA, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH -518 319. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. KRISHNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SHIVAMMA D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUBRAMANYANAGAR P.S. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU- 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. K.P.YASHODA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER OF REGULAR BAIL ENLARGING THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.163/2021 OF SUBRAMANYANAGAR POLICE, NOW IN S.C.NO.1314/2022 AND PENDING TRIAL BEFORE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-61) AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 364, 302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17800 CRL.P No. 5437 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This successive bail petition is filed third time before this Court. This Court earlier rejected the bail petition after filing of charge sheet and in paragraph No.6 taken note of recovery made at the instance of this petitioner and also taken note of the call details are also collected and on the date of the incident, this petitioner has spoken to the victim 7 times and particular minutes of the call details are also collected by the investigating officer during course of the investigation and having taken note of recovery and also the call details collected by the I.O, this Court comes to the conclusion that the same is suffice to hold that there are sound circumstances against the petitioner and hence, rejected the bail petition. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17800 CRL.P No. 5437 of 2025 3. Now, the counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that six witnesses have been examined and yet to record the remaining witnesses and he is in custody from 25.11.2021 and for examination of other witnesses, it takes time and hence, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. The counsel also would submits that accused No.1 and accused No.3 are no more and only this petitioner and other accused are remaining and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per Contra, the counsel for the respondent- State would submits that this Court already rejected the bail petition on merits vide order dated 28.02.2024 and evidence already been commenced and remaining witnesses are to be examined and counsel also would submits that the gold articles belongs to the deceased which have been snatched by this petitioner after committing murder of the deceased was recovered and persons who got it pledged the same also identified this petitioner. Apart from recovery, this Court also taken note - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17800 CRL.P No. 5437 of 2025 of call details of this petitioner on the date of committing murder. This petitioner spoken to the victim 7 times and the same has been considered earlier and now there is no any changed circumstances. 5. Having considered the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel for the respondent and also taking into note of material on record particularly column 17 of the charge sheet, specific overt act allegation is made against this petitioner that this petitioner has played active role in eliminating the deceased and intoxicated the Cyanide in the juice and committed the murder and when the gold articles belongs to the deceased also recovered at the instance of this petitioner and also call details also clearly discloses this petitioner was constant touch with the deceased on the date of incident. When such being the material available on record, not a case for exercising the discretion and there is no any changed circumstances as contended by the counsel for the respondent-State. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17800 CRL.P No. 5437 of 2025 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Petition is rejected. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36