- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32078 CRL.P No. 10575 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10575 OF 2025 BETWEEN: KADHAK BAHADHUR SINGHAS @ KAHAK SINGHA S/O SHER BAHADUR SINGH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A No.2342, 16TH CROSS 27TH MAIN, 2ND SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KARTHIK M, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY HSR LAYOUT POLICE STATION REP. BY HIGH COURT SPP BANGALORE - 01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.No.175/2022, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 397, 449, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE LXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BANGALORE. Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32078 CRL.P No. 10575 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Being unsuccessful before the Sessions Court, petitioner is before this Court seeking bail in Crime No.175/2022 of HSR Layout Police Station, Bangalore City pending in SC No.2121/2022 on the file of LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65) at Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned HCGP for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Petitioner and 5 other accused are facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 396, 449, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC, for allegedly committing dacoity and murder. Petitioner was arrested on 18.08.2022. Instant petition for bail is sought on merits as well as on the ground of delay in trial. 4. Undisputedly, this is the sixth bail petition filed before this Court by the petitioner. On all the five - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32078 CRL.P No. 10575 of 2025 occasions earlier, learned counsel appearing for petitioner sought to withdraw the petitions and therefore, the petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. Crl.P.No.5833/2025 was dismissed as not pressed, as the petitioner prayed to grant him liberty to file a fresh bail application before the trial Court on the ground of delay in trial. A perusal of the said order dated 01.07.2025, goes to show that after arguing the matter for some time, petitioner sought to withdraw the petition and this Court considering the order passed in Crl.P.No.7321/2024 dated 19.09.2024, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application before the trial Court on the ground of delay in trial, dismissed the petition as not pressed. Crl.P.No.7321/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the trial Court for bail after the examination of the material witnesses. 5. On merits, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that entire case is based on the statement of one witness i.e. CW.2, and except recovery of Rs.3,000/- and a mobile phone from the petitioner, there is absolutely - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32078 CRL.P No. 10575 of 2025 no material which would incriminate him. He contended that even according to the prosecution, petitioner remained outside the house of the deceased, whereas, accused Nos.1 to 4 entered the house and committed the offence. He, therefore contended that material collected by the prosecution is not sufficient to detain him in custody. 6. On the ground of delay in trial, it is contended by the learned counsel that petitioner has been in custody for 3 years and considering the number of witnesses cited in the charge sheet, the trial will not be concluded in the near future. As on today only one witness has been examined and therefore, there is inordinate delay in trial, which has affected the fundamental right of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (Crl.A.No.2787/2024 DD 03.07.2024), pressing into service the observations made at para 19 which reads thus: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32078 CRL.P No. 10575 of 2025 "If the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious." 8. Learned HCGP would contend that this court has on numerous occasions considered the bail plea of the petitioner and after arguing on merits, those petitions were withdrawn. This Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition after examination of the material witnesses and those witnesses are yet to be examined. He contended that petitioner has actively participated in the commission of offence and if he is enlarged on bail there is flight risk and likelihood of tampering the prosecution witnesses. 9. The deceased in this case is an old lady, who was residing alone in her house. She had requested the petitioner (accused no.6) working as a security guard, need of a security guard to her house. The petitioner - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32078 CRL.P No. 10575 of 2025 introduced accused no. 3 to the deceased. The accused came to know that the deceased had withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from her account and as they were waiting for an opportunity to settle their life by committing theft or robbery, they hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder for gain. It is the case of prosecution that on the date of incident i.e. on 12.08.2022 at about 09.30 p.m. all the accused in furtherance of the plan hatched by them, went near the house of the deceased. Accused Nos.5 and 6 stood outside to keep a vigil as to the movements of the public, while accused Nos. 1 to 4 entered the house, tied the hands and legs of the deceased, strangulated her to death and robbed the gold and cash from her house. 10. After dismissal of the bail petition by this Court in Crl.P.No.5833/2025 on 01.07.2025, petitioner approached the Sessions Court to enlarge him on bail, on merits as well as on the ground of the delay. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the said prayer, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and observing that petitioner is the prime accused. Insofar as delay in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32078 CRL.P No. 10575 of 2025 trial is concerned, it is observed by the learned Sessions Judge that as per the order sheet, much time is consumed in disposing of the bail applications and presently the stage is posted for cross-examination of the complainant. 11. The contention of learned counsel that petitioner remained outside the house and therefore, he has not committed any offence etc. cannot be accepted. The crime having been committed conjointly by all the accused in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched by them and the offence alleged being one under Sections 396 and 302 of IPC, the said contention is not worthy acceptable. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed, incarceration now undergone by the petitioner is not a ground to enlarge him on bail. Considering the fact that the trial is in progress, at this stage, if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every chance of petitioner fleeing from justice and tampering the material witnesses. Furthermore, it is noticed from the order of the learned Sessions Judge that the petitioner and other accused hail from Nepal and though it is submitted - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32078 CRL.P No. 10575 of 2025 by the counsel for petitioner that since past 10 years, the petitioner is residing in Bangalore, still if he is enlarged on bail, it will be difficult to secure his presence before the trial Court and in that event, conclusion of trial will be further delayed. 12. For the foregoing reasons petitioner is not entitled for the relief of bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The trial Court is, however, directed to expedite the trial. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE DKB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32