- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36760 CRL.P No. 9839 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9604 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9839 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9604 OF 2025 IN CRL.P No. 9839/2025 BETWEEN: NADEEM PASHA @ NADEEM AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. ALTAF, NO.NIL, OPP CHURCH SCHOOL BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, MAK, KAVERINAGARA, BSK 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560 070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. ABDUL SALAM, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SHANTHALADEVI B.R., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YELAWALA POLICE STATION, MYSORE-571 130. REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (SRI. K. NAGESWARAPPA, HCGP) Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36760 CRL.P No. 9839 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9604 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.0070/2025 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE U/S 61, 103(1), 238 R/W SEC 3(5) OF THE BNS REGISTERED BY THE YELAWALA P.S., NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-II, JMFC-II AT MYSORE IN CC.NO.827/2025. IN CRL.P NO. 9604/2025 BETWEEN: SYED NOOR PASHA @ NOOR S/O ANWAR PASHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.9TH CROSS, MECCA MASJID ROAD, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU, PIN CODE-560 070. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RANGANATH REDDY R., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY YELWALA POLICE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MYSORE. REPRESENTED BY HCGP (HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA) PIN CODE-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R. RANGASWAMY, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.70/2025 DATED 25.03.2025 REGISTERED AT YELAWALA POLICE STATION, MYSORE DISTRICT AND NOW CHARGE SHEET NO.C.C.827/2025 PENDING BEFORE THE 2ND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE FOR OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 61, 103(1), 238 R/W 3(5) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA UNDER SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36760 CRL.P No. 9839 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9604 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9839/2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9604/2025 HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.08.2025 AND 20.08.2025 RESPECTIVELY, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CAV ORDER Both these petitions are filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, by accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively, to enlarge them on bail in Crime No.70/2025 of Yelwala Police Station, Mysuru District. 2. Crl.P No.9839/2025 is filed by accused No.2 – Nadeem Pasha and Crl.P No.9604/2025 is preferred by accused No.3 – Syed Noor Pasha. 3. Initially, upon a missing complaint lodged by one Ragupati Raj S/o Rajagopal, regarding missing of his nephew S.Anand since 01.06.2024, a case in Crime No.195/2024 was registered on 18.07.2024 at Banashankari Police Station, Bengaluru City. In the course of investigation, accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36760 CRL.P No. 9839 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9604 of 2025 interrogated. On the basis of a complaint lodged by the PSI, Banashankari Police Station, a case in Crime No.13/2025 came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 3, on 09.01.2025, for the offence punishable under Section 61, 103, 238 r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 4. During Investigation, it was learnt that a UDR No.12/2024 was registered at Yelwala Police Station, Mysuru District under Section 194 of BNSS, 2023, regarding an unnatural death of a person. The photograph was identified as of one S. Anand, nephew of the original complainant Sri Raghupati. The FIR registered at Banashankari Police Station was transferred to Yelwala Police Station, Mysuru District, on the point of jurisdiction and registered as Crime No.70/2025. 5. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 61, 103(1), 238 r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36760 CRL.P No. 9839 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9604 of 2025 6. It is the case of prosecution that, deceased S. Anand, was residing at House No.541, 9th Cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar West, Bengaluru. He came into contact with accused No.1, painter, while undertaking painting work at his residence. Over the time accused No.1 developed a close relationship with the deceased and gained his trust especially after discovering that he lived alone. It is alleged that the deceased was involved in a civil dispute concerning the ownership of his house, registered as O.S. No.5384/2021 before the Civil Court, Bengaluru, wherein he had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Giridhar Prakash, who, acting as GPA holder, executed a sale deed of the deceased’s residential house in favour of K. Prasad for a consideration of Rs.47,00,000/-. Taking advantage of the situation, accused No.1 under pretext of mediation, persuaded the deceased to settle the matter. On 11.06.2024, a compromise was entered into, under which K. Prasad paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the deceased through demand - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36760 CRL.P No. 9839 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9604 of 2025 drafts and cheque. It is further alleged that accused No.1 encashed the said amount through one Hasteemal Jain, under the guise of expenses towards broker’s commission and advocate’s fees. After the sale was confirmed Purchaser initiated demolition of the house. Fearing that the deceased would discover about missing funds and unauthorized demolition, accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 3 hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased and convinced him to go on a trip. On 19.06.2024, accused No.2 took the deceased from Bengaluru to Mysuru in the car bearing registration No.KA-07-N-9147, belonging to accused No.1 and they stayed at MB International Lodge near Five Lights Circle. When the deceased expressed his desire to return to Bengaluru, accused No.2 informed accused No.1, who, along with accused No.3, came to Mysuru on 02.07.2024. Thereafter, the accused persons pacified the deceased and took him to different places, including Mangaluru and Tumakuru, until returning to the same lodge at Mysuru on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36760 CRL.P No. 9839 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9604 of 2025 08.07.2024. With the intent to kill him and illegally retain the money, the three acussed conspired to murder him. It is alleged that, on 09.07.2024 at about 1.00 a.m., the accused persons vacated the lodge and set out towards Bengaluru in the same car. When the car reached near KRS Dam, Sagarakatte Bridge, in the early hours between 2.30 and 3.00 a.m., the deceased, who was then asleep in the front seat, was strangulated with a nylon rope brought by Accused No.3. At the same time, Accused No.2 pressed a towel over his mouth and nose, while Accused No.1 held his hands and legs to prevent resistance. The deceased succumbed to the assault. Thereafter, the accused returned to the bridge, and threw the dead body into the river from the bridge, before fleeing from the spot in their vehicle. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the material on record. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36760 CRL.P No. 9839 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9604 of 2025 8. The arguments of the learned counsel for petitioners are as under: (i) Entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and the alleged confessional statement of the accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. (ii) Alleged motive is against accused No.1. The petitioners have not derived any benefit from the incident and they had no motive to commit the crime. They had no previous ill-will against the deceased. (iii) There is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint against the accused. The incident allegedly took place within the jurisdiction of Yelwala Police Station, whereas the investigation is conducted by the Banashankari Police, Bengaluru City. (iv) There is no direct or independent evidence to substantiate the prosecution case. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36760 CRL.P No. 9839 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9604 of 2025 (v) Though the prosecution theory is that the death is due to strangulation, the dead body was in a decomposed state and no ligature marks were noticed on the body, to specify the exact cause of death. (vi) Petitioners are the sole bread winners of their family, having aged parents and minor children. They are arrested and interrogated and not required for further interrogation. Investigation is completed and chargesheet is already filed. The trial is likely to consume considerable time. The learned counsel for petitioners on the above grounds, sought to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 9. The learned HCGP has contended as under: (i) The offence committed by the petitioners is pre- meditated, pursuant to a conspiracy amongst all the accused and it is heinous in nature. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36760 CRL.P No. 9839 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9604 of 2025 (ii) The specific overt acts of strangulating the deceased with a nylon rope and smothering him with a towel are attributed against the petitioners. (iii) There are sufficient materials to show the involvement of the petitioners. Though the charge sheet is filed, I.O., is yet to collect additional information and material to file a supplementary chargesheet. The DNA and FSL report are yet to be received. (iv) CWs.24, 26 and 27 are the Managers of the lodge, where the deceased and accused stayed together. The deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. (v) The offence committed is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. If bail is granted, petitioners may threaten the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. On the above grounds the learned HCGP sought to dismiss the petition. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36760 CRL.P No. 9839 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9604 of 2025 10. On perusal of the records and upon consideration of the material available, it is evident that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3. The case of the prosecution discloses a premeditated act wherein, the deceased was allegedly smothered and strangulated by the petitioners in furtherance of common intention along with the co-accused, and thereafter the body was disposed of by throwing it into the water. 11. The prosecution has relied upon recoveries under PF No.13/2025 of an 8ft. nylon rope from Accused No.3, as well as joint recovery of mobile phones and the car allegedly used in the commission of the offence. These recoveries lend support to the case of the prosecution at this stage. 12. The statements of material witnesses also prima facie connect the petitioners with the alleged crime. CW.24, Manager of S.L.N. Lodge, and CWs.26 and 27, Manager and Receptionist of M.B. International Lodge, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36760 CRL.P No. 9839 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9604 of 2025 Mysuru, have spoken regarding the stay of the accused along with the deceased and the fact of last-seen together. CW.28, the owner of the car bearing registration No.KA- 07-N-9147, has deposed regarding the subsequent sale of the said vehicle by Accused No.1 after the incident. CW.29 has spoken about property dealings and the role of Accused Nos.1 and 2 in the transaction. CWs.30 and 31 are seizure witnesses for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/-. These statements, along with CW.19 who identified the deceased from the photographs in the UDR proceedings, and CW.38 who gave his blood samples for DNA comparison, constitute material which prima facie supports the prosecution case. 13. Though it is contended that the case is based on circumstantial evidence, at this stage, the material placed by the prosecution indicates a strong prima facie case against the petitioners. The seriousness of the offence, the manner in which it is alleged to have been - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36760 CRL.P No. 9839 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9604 of 2025 committed, and the specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners, cannot be ignored. 14. The charge sheet has been filed, but crucial scientific reports such as DNA and FSL are still awaited and further investigation is yet to be concluded. In such circumstances, release of the petitioners on bail may hamper the investigation and there exists a reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with witnesses or fleeing from jurisdiction. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amarmani Tripathi reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 has held that while considering bail, the Court must take into account the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, and reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses. Similarly, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another reported in (2005) 2 SCC 42, it has been observed that bail cannot be granted where serious allegations exist and a prima facie case is made out. In Neeru Yadav v. State of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36760 CRL.P No. 9839 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9604 of 2025 Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2014) 16 SCC 508, the Apex Court has further emphasized that in cases of heinous offences, judicial discretion must be exercised with utmost caution. 16. Applying the aforesaid principles, considering the seriousness of the offence, the gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have not made out any ground for grant of bail. Petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1