- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21804 CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15039 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SHIVARAJU S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT HOSAPALYA, KUDUR HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT PIN - 561 101 PERMANENT R/AT NO.302 4TH CROSS, MUDDAPPANAPALYA VISWANEEDAM POST BENGALURU - 560 091 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH J.M., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADDUR POLICE STATION REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU - 560 001 . …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R. RANGASWAMY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21804 CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO RELEASED HIM ON BAIL WHO IS ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRIME NO.260/2022 (S.C.NO.23/2023) ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT MADDUR POLICE STATION, NOW PENDING ON I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AT MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 201,302 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.1 for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the case of the petitioner/accused No.1 that the complaint was lodged by the brother of the deceased before Kudur Police Station registered in Crime No. 393/2022. The same was transferred to Maddur Police Station for want of jurisdiction, and a complaint was registered in Crime No. 260/2022. Investigation was completed, and the charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner and three other accused persons. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21804 CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025 2. It is the case of the prosecution that petitioner/accused No.1 had borrowed money from deceased Lokesh on 29.08.2022 at about 04.30 to 05.00 a.m. The deceased, in a drunken state, scolded the petitioner/accused No.1 to return back the amount. In this connection a motive was developed; petitioner/accused No.1 with the help of other accused (three in number), committed the murder of the deceased and threw the dead body on the railway track near Karadiguchamma Temple, Solur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 contends that he filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in S.C.No.23/2023 before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, for grant of regular bail, which came to be dismissed on 05.02.2024. Being unsuccessful in securing regular bail, he is before this Court seeking grant of bail. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21804 CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025 4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence and the prosecution has based its theory on circumstantial evidence, and there is no eye witness to the incident. It is further contended that a false and concocted story is put up against the petitioner implicating him in this heinous offence in which he is not involved. He further contends that there is a delay in the trial. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.10.2022. The prosecution has not even examined a single witness. During the course of arguments, he submits that CW1 to CW12 have been examined. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner/accused No.1. A charge sheet has been filed. There is no incriminating material as against the petitioner/accused No.1 and no materials are recovered as against the petitioner/accused No.1 to implicate him for the offence. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21804 CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that the petitioner is the sole earning member, having deep roots in the society and having a respectable name in the society. There is no chance of him absconding from the jurisdiction of the place. He would participate in the trial and adhere to the terms and conditions imposed by this Court if bail is granted. He also submits that there are no criminal antecedents other than the present case on hand. Hence, he may be granted bail and be released on bail for the offences stated herein. 6. Per contra, Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent- State vehemently contends that the petitioner/accused No.1 had borrowed money from the deceased, and when the deceased asked for the return of the amount, the petitioner/accused No.1, along with three other accused persons, colluded with each other and conspired to take away the life of the deceased so that they may not have to pay the amount that was borrowed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21804 CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025 from the deceased. There is a clear motive behind the act of murder, which was deliberate and conscious. Therefore, there is circumstantial evidence available. The petitioner is seen taking the deceased to the lodge and came out of the lodge where he was staying and caused the death of the deceased. Therefore, there is a specific incident of an overt act as against the petitioner/accused No.1 though the other accused may have been released on bail as contended. 7. Learned HCGP further contends that when there is a specific overt act as against the petitioner/accused No.1 and CW-22 is yet to be examined, who is the owner of the lodge, it may not be appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.1 as there is every chance of hampering and tampering with the witnesses, absconding from the jurisdiction of the Court, and not participating in the trial. Therefore, he seeks rejection of the bail. Learned HCGP contends that under such circumstances, if bail is granted, it may hamper the prosecution evidence, which is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21804 CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025 already in the mid way. Hence, he seeks the petition to be rejected. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and learned HCGP for the State. Apparently, it is seen that the offences are punishable, if proved, with life or death imprisonment. The offences are under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC. The petitioner/accused No.1 has been in judicial custody from 11.10.2022. Evidence of CW1 to CW12 are examined. CW- 22 is none other than the owner of the lodge, who is a prime witness to speak about the incident. 9. This Court is not inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner/accused No.1 to grant him bail till the evidence of CW-22 is examined. Under the circumstances, the petitioner/accused No.1 could be given liberty to move this Court after the evidence of CW-22 is recorded. Gravity of the offences is high. The offence is heinous in nature. Looking into the specific overt-act - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21804 CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025 against the petitioner/accused No.1, this Court is not inclined to grant bail as of now. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following order. ORDER The petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner/accused No.1 to move for the grant of bail after the evidence of CW-22 is recorded. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5