- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6537 CRL.P No. 12646 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12646 OF 2024 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. VARADARAJA @ KAJJI S/O. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION LABOURER, RESIDING AT NEAR CHURCH, KAMANABHAVI BADAVANE, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS N, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE THEM ON REGULAR BAIL IN S.C.NO.78/2023 (CR.NO.24/2023) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 302, 323, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC BY CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF THE PRL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHITRADURGA IN S.C.NO.78/2023. Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6537 CRL.P No. 12646 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioner / accused No.2 in Sessions case No.78/2023, pending before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, has preferred this petition praying to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.24/2023 of Chitradurga Police Station, Chitradurga. 2. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 3. This is a successive bail petition preferred by the petitioner. Crl.P.No.13398/2023 was dismissed by this Court by a detailed order passed on 18.01.2024. While dismissing the said petition, it was observed that it is open for the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court afresh, after examination of CWs.2 and 3. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6537 CRL.P No. 12646 of 2024 4. Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 05.11.2024 has dismissed the bail application preferred by both accused Nos.1 and 2. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel that both CWs.2 and 3 have been examined by the Trial Court and out of them CW.3 has not supported the case of prosecution. Hence, even accepting the evidence of CW.2, there is no corroborative evidence. Further, CWs.2 and 3 being the only eye witnesses having been examined, question of tampering the said witnesses does not arise. It is further contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 20.02.2023 and therefore, by imposing any conditions, he may be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the petitioner has stabbed the deceased with a knife on the abdomen. As per final opinion regarding cause of death, death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of stab injury to abdomen. CW.2 has categorically stated in his evidence that this - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6537 CRL.P No. 12646 of 2024 petitioner i.e., accused No.2 stabbed the deceased on his abdomen and therefore, there is a prima-facie case. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that even accepting the case of prosecution, the deceased was fully drunk at the time of incident, which is evident from the postmortem report as contents of alcohol was found in his stomach and therefore, it is the deceased himself who picked up quarrel, hence, the case would not fall under Section 302 of IPC. He submitted that petitioner who has undergone nearly 2 years of imprisonment may be enlarged on bail. 8. According to prosecution, accused No.1 took out a radium sticker blade and inflicted cut injury on the head of the deceased and the petitioner / accused No.2 stabbed on his abdomen with a knife. Accused Nos.3 and 4 namely, minor offenders have allegedly assaulted the deceased with hands and kicked him. 9. This Court has already considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and having noticed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6537 CRL.P No. 12646 of 2024 that there is a prima-facie case against the petitioner, dismissed the bail petition vide order dated 18.01.2024 in Crl.P.No.13398/2023. The changed circumstances, pleaded by the learned counsel for petitioner is that, now the eye witnesses namely CWs.2 and CW.3, are examined and this Court had reserved liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition after the examination of CWs.2 and 3. 10. Before the trial Court, CW.2 and 3 are examined as PWs.2 and 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel that CW.3 has not supported the case of prosecution. Whereas, learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that CW.2, examined as PW.2 has clearly deposed that this petitioner has stabbed the deceased on his abdomen. The evidence led before the Trial Court cannot be appreciated in this bail petition, as observation if any made may prejudice both the parties. It is no doubt, CWs.2 and 3, eye witnesses are examined, however, merely because their examination is completed that by itself is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6537 CRL.P No. 12646 of 2024 bail. According to prosecution, blood stained knife, shirt, pant have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. As per postmortem report, cause of death is on account of the injury caused to the abdomen. There are other witnesses to be examined. The contention of the learned counsel that the offence would not fall under Section 302 of IPC, cannot be appreciated at this stage. Considering the weapon used and the part of the body chosen to inflict injuries and the punishment prescribed, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT: BHK