- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27327 CRL.P No. 5517 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5517 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI PRABAKAR B S/O LATE BALARAM AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS PRESENT ADDRESS C/O MURALI RENT HOUSE A.K COLONY, ADUGODI BENGALURU - 560 030 PERMANENT ADDRESS MUDDANAPPALLI VILLAGE PEDDUR MAIN ROAD RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI TOMY SEBASTIAN, LEARNED SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI RENY SEBASTIAN, ADV.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ATTIBELE POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN, S.C. NO. 5035/2026 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL SITTING AT ANEKAL, (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.363/2025 OF ATTIBELE POLICE STATION) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 13, 61(2)(a), 103(1), 238(a) R/W 3(5) BNS, 2023. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27327 CRL.P No. 5517 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused No.1 in S.C.No.5035/2026 pending before the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural (sitting at Anekal) arising out of Crime No.363/2025 registered by Attibele Police Station, Bengaluru District for the offences punishable under Sections 13, 61(2)(a), 103(1) 238(a) R/w Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023 is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for respondent no.1. 3. FIR in Crime No.363/2025 was registered by Attibele Police Station, Bengaluru District after a missing complaint was lodged by Smt. Neha M.P wife of Srinath, who is the deceased in the present case. During the course of investigation of the said case, the petitioner herein was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27327 CRL.P No. 5517 of 2026 arrested on 13.11.2025 and after completing investigation, charge sheet has been now filed against two persons for the aforesaid offences. The bail application filed by the petitioner before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in S.C.No.5035/2026 was dismissed on 28.03.2026. Therefore, he is before this Court. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Recovery of the dead body of the deceased at the instance of the petitioner becomes doubtful having regard to the discrepancies found in the spot mahazar and recovery mahazar which were prepared on 16.11.2025. He submits that, grounds of arrest has not been served on the petitioner in compliance of the requirements of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIHAAN KUMAR V STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER - (2025) 5 SCC 799 Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27327 CRL.P No. 5517 of 2026 5. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP, who has strongly opposed the petition submits that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents and he was earlier convicted for life imprisonment in a murder case. She submits that, the petitioner is a close relative of the deceased and he had strong motive to commit his murder. The dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the petitioner and material on record would go to show that the property from which dead body of deceased was recovered belonged to the petitioner. There are strong circumstances to connect the petitioner to the crime. She submits that grounds of arrest has been served on the petitioner. 6. In reply learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was convicted in a murder case by the Trial Court was subsequently, acquitted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.A.No.357/2016 disposed of on 27.12.2022. There is no material to show that the property from which dead body was recovered belongs to the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27327 CRL.P No. 5517 of 2026 7. The first informant, Smt. Neha M.P is the wife of Srinath, who is the deceased in the present case. On 01.11.2025, she had submitted a missing complaint before Attibele Police Station based on which FIR in Crime No.363/2025 was registered. In her first information Smt. Neha has stated that she and her husband were residing at Attibele and her husband was employed in a company known as Modose. On 27.10.2025 at about 06.00 a.m. he had left the house and had gone to Kuppam to meet Prabhakar, who is his close relative. Since he has not returned home, Smt. Neha has made enquiries with Prabhakar about her husband, who in turn inform her that Srinath had not come to Kuppam to meet him. It is under these circumstances, a missing complaint was filed on 01.11.2025. 8. During the course of investigation, Prabhakar who is arraigned as accused no.1 in the present case and another were arrested and after completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against them for the aforesaid offences. In the charge sheet it is alleged that Prabhakar had borrowed a sum of ₹.40,00,000/- from Srinath, who was his close relative and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27327 CRL.P No. 5517 of 2026 had failed to repay the same. Since Srinath was repeatedly demanding repayment of the said amount, accused no.1 decided to commit his murder and he had purchased a under construction house property, which belonged to CW28 and thereafter conspired with accused no.2 to commit the murder of Srinath. In the property which was purchased by Prabhakar he had dug a toilet pit with an intention to bury the dead body of Srinath in the said pit. On 27.10.2025 he had summoned Srinath to Kuppam in Andhra Pradesh State with a promise to repay the money, which he was due and after Srinath came to Kuppam he took him to the said property which he had purchased in which he had already dug a toilet pit and in the said property accused nos.1 and 2 committed the murder of Srinath by assaulting him with iron rod and thereafter buried his dead body in the toilet pit and closed the said pit with mud. 9. During the course of investigation, after accused nos.1 and 2 were arrested at the instance of the said accused body of deceased Srinath, which was buried in the aforesaid property was exhumed on 16.11.2025. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27327 CRL.P No. 5517 of 2026 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that on 16.11.2025 multiple mahazars were prepared and the statement of different panch witnesses to the said mahazar was recorded and therefore a doubt arises with regard to the genuineness of the mahazars. 11. Such discrepancies cannot be a reason to grant bail to an accused, who is involved in committing heinous crime of committing murder and such discrepancies would be only a defence available to the accused during the course of trial. 12. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, petitioner herein was involved in another murder case in which he was tried before the Court of VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 364, 302, 201 r/w Section 120-B of IPC. In the said case, the deceased was the wife of petitioner's friend. The petitioner who was arraigned as accused no.2 in the said case was convicted for the charge sheet offences. Even in the said case, there is a similar allegation and accused in the said case also had buried the dead body of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27327 CRL.P No. 5517 of 2026 deceased in similar fashion. May be the petitioner was subsequently acquitted in the said case by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.357 of 2016 but the fact remains that petitioner was accused of committing crime in similar fashion. 13. The material collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation makes out a prima facie case as against the petitioner for the charge sheet offences. The dead body of the deceased was found in the property which was purchased by the petitioner from CW.28 by paying a sum of ₹.3,00,000/- as advance sale consideration. The said circumstances, makes out a strong case as against the accused and even in the first information, it is specifically stated that the deceased had gone to Kuppam to meet Prabhakar, who is his close relative and thereafter he was missing. Under the circumstances, on the merits of the case, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also submitted that grounds of arrest has not served in the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27327 CRL.P No. 5517 of 2026 present case. The material on record would go to show that copy of the grounds of arrest which is available in the charge sheet, the petitioner's signature is found wherein he has acknowledged the receipt of the said grounds of arrest. Further, on the day of his arrest when the petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, an advocate had appeared on his behalf. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIHAAN KUMAR (supra) and also in its earlier judgments, which is referred to in the case of VIHAAN KUMAR (supra) has observed that, the purpose of serving grounds of arrest on an accused is to bring to his notice the reason for his arrest and also allegations made against him so as to enable the arrested accused to avail legal remedy for his defence. 16. The legislative intent behind serving the grounds of arrest is to enable the arrested person to effectively secure legal representation and to promptly seek any appropriate legal remedies available, so that such remedies may be exercised without any delay. This requirement is designed to empower - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27327 CRL.P No. 5517 of 2026 not only the arrestee but also in a position to act on his behalf, thereby safeguarding the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India. 17. In the present case petitioner's signature is found in the copy of the grounds of arrest served and on the day when the petitioner was produced before the Court an advocate had appeared on his behalf before the Court. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, there is no merit in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that grounds of arrest was not served on him in compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIHAAN KUMAR (supra). 18. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this criminal petition lacks merits. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58