- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7363 CRL.P No. 23 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 23 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SHIVAKUMAR @ SHIVU S/O GANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. NEAR SRI RAMA TEMPLE, SWANDEBNAHALLI, SATYAMANGALA, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 103 ALSO RESIDING AT BETHALURU VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU - 572 133. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.M. SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHAMMED UMMAR FAROOQ, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY TUMAKURU RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL IN S.C.N.68/2024 (CR.NO.394/2023) REGISTERED BY THE TUMAKURU RURAL POLICE STATION, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 324, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 27 OF ARMS ACT, WHICH IS PENDING IN THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7363 CRL.P No. 23 of 2026 JUDGE, TUMAKURU BY IMPOSING ANY CONDITIONS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THIS HONBLE COURT. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused No.2 in crime No.394/2023 in S.C.No.68/2024 pending on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 504, 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and Section 27 of Arms Act, is seeking grant of bail. 2. Heard Sri.G.M. Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for Sri. Mohammed Ummar Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rangaswamy R, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7363 CRL.P No. 23 of 2026 "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 4. Initially, FIR came to be registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 25A of Arms Act on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant. The investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the above said offences. 5. As per the case of the prosecution, CW1 is the friend of the deceased, who filed the first information. CWs.1 to 5 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. During investigation, the statements of these witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC before the learned Magistrate, where they explained the overt acts committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in causing death of the deceased by inflicting fatal injuries. It is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7363 CRL.P No. 23 of 2026 stated that while accused No.2/the petitioner herein held the deceased, accused No.1 stabbed at his chest. 6. As per the postmortem report, which is produced for perusal of the Court, the deceased had sustained four external injuries and cause of death is a result of hemorrhage due to stab injuries to the chest. It is stated that the dragger, blood stained shirt and two mobile phones were recovered from the present petitioner. As per the FSL report the samples found on the seized articles tested positive for the blood stains belonging the deceased. Hence, there are strong prima-facie materials against the petitioner being part of the crime committed along with accused No.1. 7. The petitioner had approached this Court seeking grant of bail by filing Crl.P.No.5547/2024, the same came to be disposed off vide order dated 15.07.2024, as the learned counsel after addressing the arguments sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file similar petition before the Trial Court after examination of the material witnesses. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7363 CRL.P No. 23 of 2026 8. Now it is stated that PWs.1 to 5 are examined before the Trial Court and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is strange to note that PW1-the friend of the deceased, who is the complainant as well as the eye-witness, who recorded their statements before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.PC has not supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly other eye-witnesses PWs.2 to 5 whose statements were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC and marked as Exs.P3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 have also not supported the case. Now it is the duty of the Trial Court to appreciate the evidence on record and to find out as to whether the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 9. At this stage, I could only state that serious doubt arises in the conduct of CWs.1 to 5 in turning hostile after recording the statements before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.PC. It is specific contention of the prosecution that there are recovery of incriminating materials at the instance of the present petitioner. Considering all these facts and circumstances, since the offence in question is punishable - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7363 CRL.P No. 23 of 2026 by either death or imprisonment for life, I am of the opinion that it is not safe to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 10. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4