- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21905 CRL.P No. 8467 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8467 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. GURURAJ, S/O LATE MADDURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT SINGRAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, (ACCUSED IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) PINCODE - 562 110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BENIGN J.L. PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY VISHWANATHAPURA PS., REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. S.P.P.) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL FROM THE OFFENCE REGISTERED BY VISHWANATHAPURA POLICE IN CR.NO.22 OF 2022, DATED 08.03.2022 CURRENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF S.C NO.15039/2022 BEFORE THE V ADDL. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21905 CRL.P No. 8467 of 2025 DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DEVANAHALLI TRAIL COURT U/S 302, 201, 506 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - the sole accused is before the Court seeking his enlargement on bail for it having been turned down by the concerned Court. 2. There was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner on 07.04.2026 nor there is representation today. Therefore, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, the learned Additional SPP is heard in the matter. 3. The complaint comes to be registered on 08.03.2022, which becomes a crime in Crime No.22 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 506 of the IPC. The police then conduct investigation and file a charge sheet arraigning the petitioner alone as the sole accused in the matter. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21905 CRL.P No. 8467 of 2025 Column No.17, which draws only the petitioner as accused, reads as follows: "17. PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À ¢£ÁAPÀ 06/03/2022 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 10.00 jAzÀ 10.30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ «±Àé£ÁxÀ¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀzÀÄÝ ¹AUÀæºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è F zÉƵÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖ PÁ®A £ÀA.12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀÄÈvÀ £ÀgÀ¹A»AiÀÄå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë 2 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ PÀĽvÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀå¥Á£À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë 2 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß CAUÀrUÉ ºÉÆÃV ¹UÀgÉÃmï vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉý PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÁQë 2 gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ £ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæ E§âgÀÆ PÀĽvÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ £ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ Hj£À°è AiÀiÁªÁUÀ®Æ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃqÀ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ »AzÉ E¢ÝÃAiÀÄ, Hj£À°è J®ègÀÆ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉ. ¤Ã£ÀÄ M¼ÉîAiÀÄ jÃw¬ÄAzÀ EgÀÄ JAzÀÄ §Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉýzÀÄÝ, CzÀPÉÌ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå¤UÉ E°è £Á£Éà J¯Áè, £À£Àß EµÀÖzÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÉÛãÉ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ£ÉÆà PÉüÀ®Ä, ¤£Àß CªÀÄä£Áß PÉÊAiÀÄ JAzÀÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊ¢zÀÄÝ, CzÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÈvÀ £ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÁ DgÉÆæUÉ ¨ÉÊ¢zÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ KPÁ KQ ªÀÄÈvÀ £ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå£À JzÉUÉ PÉʬÄAzÀ UÀÄ¢ÝzÁUÀ £ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå PɼÀUÉ PÀ°è£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ©zÀÄÝ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå£À£ÀÄß ¸Á¬Ä¸ÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°èzÀÝ ¹ªÉÄAmï EnÖUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå£À vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É JwÛºÁQ ¸Á¬Ä¹zÀÄÝ, CµÀÖgÀ°è C°èUÉ §AzÀ ¸ÁQë 2 gÀªÀjUÉ F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁjUÁzÀgÀÆ ºÉýzÀgÉ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ¸Á¬Ä¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀÄÝ, ¸ÁQë 2 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨sÀAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀÄ C°èAzÀ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 07/03/2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ DgÉƦAiÀÄÄ PÉƯÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgɪÀiÁZÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀvÀÄÛ ©¢ÝzÀÝ £ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄågÀªÀgÀ ±ÀªÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨Éqï ²Ãmï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Áè¹ÖPï aîzÀ°è ¸ÀÄwÛ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ »A¨sÁUÀzÀ gÁdPÁ®ÄªÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ PÀ¸ÀzÀ w¥ÉàAiÀÄ°è ºÁQzÀÄÝ, £Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ £ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå£À vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆwð QvÀÄÛ wA¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À jÃvÁå ¸À°è¸À¯ÁzÀ zÉƵÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖ." 4. A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would indicate that the dead body was found in the backyard of the petitioner and there were eyewitnesses present for the incident. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21905 CRL.P No. 8467 of 2025 5. The issue therefore is whether the petitioner who is accused of an offence under Section 302 of the IPC deserves to be released on bail. The issue need not detain this Court for too long nor delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KERALA v. MAHESH1, observes as follows: "….…. …….. …….. 15. It is well settled that though the power to grant bail under Section 439CrPC is discretionary, such discretion has to be exercised judiciously, as held by this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] . Speaking for the Court, Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J. said : (SCC p. 602, paras 3-4) “3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order — but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter. 4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being: (a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails 1(2021) 14 SCC 86 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21905 CRL.P No. 8467 of 2025 a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail. (c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” 16. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] , D.K. Jain, J., speaking for a two-Judge Bench of this Court laid down the principles for examining the correctness of orders granting bail to an accused. This Court held : (SCC p. 499, paras 9- 10) “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well-settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21905 CRL.P No. 8467 of 2025 (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. … 10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal.” ….…. …….. …….. 21. There is no straitjacket formula for grant or refusal of bail. Seriousness of the charge is undoubtedly one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications as held in Sanjay Chandra [Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 26 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 397] cited on behalf of the respondent-accused. All the relevant factors have to be weighed by the Court considering an application for bail, including the gravity of the offence, the evidence and material which prima facie show the involvement of the applicant for bail in the offence alleged, the extent of involvement of the applicant for bail, in the offence alleged, possibility of the applicant-accused absconding or otherwise defeating or delaying the course of justice, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being threatened or influenced or of evidence being tempered with, and danger to the safety of the victim (if alive), the complainant, their relatives, friends or other witnesses. 32. 32. In this case, the impugned order [Mahesh v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 7680] of the High Court is flawed, in that the High Court noted the seriousness of the offence alleged, observed that the incident was heinous, but proceeded to grant bail to the respondent-accused on the purported ground that he had been in custody since 6-10- 2020 (that is, about 75 days) without even considering the materials on record which prima facie made out reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent-accused had committed the heinous offence. At that stage, even the charge-sheet had not been filed. The High Court did not apply its mind to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, or the fact that the accused had been absconding after the incident. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21905 CRL.P No. 8467 of 2025 33. As argued on behalf of the appellant, supported by the applicant for intervention, being the hapless parent of the victim, the High Court has neither considered nor discussed the elaborate reasons given by the Sessions Court in its order rejecting the prayer of the respondent-accused for bail.The impugned order [Mahesh v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 7680] of the High Court does not advert to any error in the reasoning of the Sessions Court. Nor is there any discussion of the reason why the High Court took a view different from that taken by the Sessions Court — whether there were any supervening circumstances within 10/12 days of the order of the Sessions Court, which necessitated a different view. 34. The High Court, in our opinion, clearly erred in not appreciating that the apprehension of the prosecution that the respondent-accused would influence witnesses, could not be put to rest, by directing the respondent-accused not to enter the jurisdiction of Ollur Police Station. The High Court completely ignored the fact that the deceased victim used to reside at Ernakulam. Her parents and her five years old daughter reside at Ernakulam. In other words, the only eyewitness is a resident of Ernakulam. Most of the prosecution witnesses were from Thrissur. There was no reason to suppose that the witnesses would restrict their movements to the limits of the jurisdiction of Ollur Police Station. 35. It further appears from the impugned order [Mahesh v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 7680] that, in granting bail to the respondent-accused, the High Court took note of the fact that two other accused persons had not been arrested. The High Court completely ignored the fact that these two accused persons were not named in the FIR. They were charged after investigation with offence under Section 212, of harbouring the respondent-accused, punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of five years, unlike the respondent-accused, charged with murder under Section 302IPC, which entails minimum punishment of imprisonment for life.” (Emphasis supplied) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21905 CRL.P No. 8467 of 2025 The Apex Court was considering a case involving a challenge to a High Court order granting bail to an accused charged under Section 302 of the IPC. While setting aside the High Courts order and affirming the order of the Sessions Court rejecting bail to the accused, the Apex Court observed that although there is no straitjacket formula for grant or refusal of bail, seriousness of the charge is one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications. The Apex Court further emphasized that, in deciding bail applications, all relevant considerations must be carefully weighed, including the gravity of the offence, the prima facie evidence indicating the applicant’s involvement, the extent of such involvement, the likelihood of the accused absconding or obstructing the course of justice, the risk of witnesses being threatened or influenced or evidence being tampered with, and any potential danger to the victim (if alive), the complainant, their relatives, friends, or other witnesses. 6. In light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the facts and circumstances of this case, grant of bail to the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21905 CRL.P No. 8467 of 2025 petitioner in the teeth of the aforesaid offence, is not warranted, at this juncture. 7. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to knock at the doors of the appropriate fora in the event of any changed circumstance, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3