- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010405722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38013 CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8551 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MOHAMMED APSAR @ FRUIT APSAR S/O LATE ABDULLA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3325/57, ANEGUNDI ROAD, 2ND EDIGAH, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GAURAV N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRIRANGAPATNA RURAL POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. MUZAMIL BEG S/O NASRULLA BEG, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO. NO.2438/1A, YELEKATTE STREET, Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010405722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38013 CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026 ASHOKA WEST, CROSS 21., LASHKAR MOHALLA. MYSORE CITY, MYSURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 570001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN RELATION TO CRIME NO.85/2026 REGISTERED BY SRIRANGAPATNA RURAL POLICE STATION MANDYA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 189(2), 191(3), 46, 61(1), 238, 103(1) AND 190 OF BNS 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, S.R.PATNA MANDYA DISTRICT INVESTIGATION ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER Accused No.1 in Crime No.85/2026 registered by Srirangapatna Police Station, Mandya, for the offence punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(3), 238, 103(1) and 190 of BNS, 2023, is in this petition filed under - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010405722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38013 CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026 Section 483 of BNSS 2023, seeking regular bail before this Court seeking regular bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.85/2026 was registered by Srirangapatna Police Station, Mandya, for the aforesaid offences against Abeeb alias Sukka and five others. Based on the first information dated 06.05.2026, received from respondent No.2 herein, who is the cousin of the deceased Mohammed Javed Alam @ Sahil. During the course of investigation, petitioner was arrested on 11.05.2026 and remanded to judicial custody. His bail application filed before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court in Criminal Misc. 5183 of 2026 was rejected on 10.06.2026. Therefore, he is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioner's name is not found in the FIR. Except the confession statement of the co-accused whose name is found in the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010405722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38013 CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026 FIR, there is absolutely no material collected by the prosecution as against the petitioner till date. He submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and only based on the confession statement, his custody cannot be continued. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnamohan Reddy Vs. The State ofAndhra Pradesh in SLP (Crl) No.7532/2025. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the petition submits that investigation of the case is still under progress and the mobile phone of the petitioner which has been seized has been forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory. The bank statement of the accused is being collected and scrutinized. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. FIR in the present case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(3), 238, 103(1) and 190 of BNS, 2023 against Abeeb alias Sukka - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010405722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38013 CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026 and 5 others. It is not in dispute that petitioner's name is not found in the FIR. It appears that the accused named in the FIR, as well as the deceased, are persons with criminal antecedent and they are rowdy sheeters. During the course of investigation, Accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested and based on the confession statement of the said accused persons, it appears that the petitioner was subsequently arrested on 11.05.2026. In the confession statement of the aforesaid accused, they have stated that the petitioner who had a ill-will against the deceased for the reason that he was demanding money from him and also interfering with his business, allegedly had promised to pay money to the assailants for Court expenses in the event they commit the murder of the deceased Sahil. 7. In the confession statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, there is no such averment that they had received any money from the petitioner through bank transactions. In the confession statement, it is stated that the petitioner herein had sent a sum of ₹3,00,000/- through one Tippu. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010405722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38013 CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026 Undisputedly, till date, statement of said Tippu has been not recorded in the present case. During the course of investigation, except recovering the petitioner's mobile phone, there is no other incriminating material collected by the police against him till date. He is in custody in the present case for the last more than 70 days. Therefore as on this date, except the confession statement of the co- accused, no incriminating material has been collected by the police as against the petitioner herein. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnamohan Reddy in paragraph Nos.39 and 40 has observed as follows:- 39. The High Court has its own understanding of Section 30 of the Evidence Act. It says that what is admissible under Section 30 can also be looked into at the stage of considering the plea of anticipatory bail or even regular bail. However, we are not impressed with the view expressed by the High Court. We are of the considered opinion that such a confession if any cannot be looked into at the stage of anticipatory bail or even regular bail for the following reasons: - (i) Before a confession is taken into consideration against a co-accused, the said confession has to be duly proved against the maker. It has to be clearly established that such - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010405722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38013 CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026 confession is not vitiated either by Section 24 of the Evidence Act nor rendered inadmissible by Section 25 thereof, which can only be ascertained in the course of trial. It must be clearly established by leading cogent evidence in the course of the trial before the case for the prosecution comes to an end. [See: Dipak Bhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2019) 16 SCC 547]. When confession is made before police official, the same cannot be proved in evidence at all. Statement contemplated under section 30 should be relevant and admissible, and that is the foremost requirement of section and sine qua non. (ii) Section 30 of Evidence Act postulates that such a confession can be taken into consideration only where the accused persons are jointly tried. The said provision does not merely require that the persons must be accused of the same offence, but rather requires that they must be being tried jointly for the said offence. [See: Queen Empress v. Jagat Chandra Mali, ILR (1894) 22 Cal 50; Naresh v. R, AIR 1938 Cal 479]. Joint trial here refers to the one provided under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the "Cr.P.C."). Thus, where the accused persons are either not being tried jointly, or are yet to be charged for the same offence and thereafter tried together, Section 30 of the Evidence Act would be inapplicable. [See: Badri Prasad Prajapati v. State of M.P., (2005) Cr.L.J. 1856]. Thus, Section 30 of the Evidence Act, would not spring into action when the charges are yet to be framed and the accused persons are yet to be committed to trial, and any confession admissible thereunder cannot be taken into consideration by the courts. (iii) Assuming for a moment that such a confession can be looked into at the stage of anticipatory bail or even regular bail, as per Kashmira Singh (supra), such a confession can only be pressed into consideration by the court as a rule of prudence, to lend assurance to the other evidence against such co-accused. Thus, there - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010405722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38013 CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026 must exist other evidence on record, before the court looks into such confession. 40. Where a confessional statement is otherwise excluded or inadmissible by virtue of Section(s) 25 or 26 of the Evidence Act, respectively, there can be no question of such confessional statements being made admissible against another co-accused by stretching it with the help of Section 30 of the Evidence Act. Section 25 places a complete ban on the making of such confession by that person whether he is in custody or not. Section 26 lays down that a confession made by a person while he is in the custody of a police officer shall not be proved against him unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. [See: Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana, (1997) 7 SCC 231] Confessional statement contemplated under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, must be both relevant and admissible in terms of the Evidence Act." 9. It is not in dispute that petitioner has no other criminal antecedent and he is said to be a businessman having family. Major portion of the investigation is already completed. All the assailants in the present case have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following: - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010405722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38013 CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026 ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.85/2026 registered by Srirangapatna Police Station, Mandya, for the offence punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(3), 238, 103(1) and 190 of BNS, 2023 subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons; c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010405722026 NC: 2026:KHC:38013 CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026 d) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off. e) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future. f) petitioner is directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Srirangapatna Rural Police Station, Mandya and mark his attendance on every first and third Sunday of the month between 10 a.m. and 01.00 p.m. till the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE Vmb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59