- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21404 CRL.P No. 12553 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12553 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: VIJAY @ VIJI S/O SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT: NEAR ASHWATH NAGARA, PETROL BUNK, 5TH CROSS, TELECOM LAYOUT, NAGAVARA, BANGALORE - 560 045. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOKUL H R.,ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. KRISHNE GOWDA M., AND SRI. NATARAJ D., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY UPPARPETE PS. RPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. &RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SOUMYA R.,HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.48/2025 OF UPPARPETE P.S., NOW IN S.C.NO.849/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 103(1),3(5) AND 311 OF BNS AND PENDING BEFORE THE 67tH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21404 CRL.P No. 12553 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023'), calling in question the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.No.68) in Crl.Misc.No.6351/2025, whereby the bail petition filed by the appellant came to be rejected. Brief facts: 2. The case arises out of Crime No.48/2025 of Upparpete Police Station, Bangalore, now pending in S.C.No.849/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 311 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. The allegation is that accused Nos.1 and 2, in furtherance of the common intention, assaulted the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21404 CRL.P No. 12553 of 2025 deceased at KSRTC bus stand, Majestic by using a knife, causing grievous injury which resulted in death. 3. Learned counsel for appellant/accused No.2 contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated and there is no specific overt act attributed to him. It is submitted that the allegations are to be omnibus in nature. Further, contended that the complainant is not an eye witness and case rests on hearsay evidence. It is submitted that the investigation is completed. The case has been committed to the Sessions Court and therefore, custodial interrogation is not required. The appellant is aged about 19 years and continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment. It is further contended that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding tampering with the witnesses is without any material basis. On this ground, the appellant seeks enlargement on bail. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21404 CRL.P No. 12553 of 2025 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent - State submits that the offence alleged is grave and heinous in nature, punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and therefore, requires Court to exercise greater caution while considering bail. It is contended that accused Nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have acted conjointly in furtherance of their common intention. The charge sheet discloses the presence of eye witnesses and the trial has not yet commenced and if released on bail, the appellant is likely to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. Hence, seeks dismissal of the petition. 5. From the material on record, this Court finds that allegation disclose commission of a serious offence resulting in a loss of human life. The contention of the appellant that no specific overt act is attributed to him cannot be accepted at this stage. The prosecution case indicates that accused Nos.1 and 2 have acted in furtherance of their common intention and the absence of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21404 CRL.P No. 12553 of 2025 a distinct overt act is a matter to be tested during trial. The charge sheet indicates the presence of eye witness whose evidence is yet to be recorded. Hence, the contention of the appellant that complainant is not an eye witness and that the case rests on hearsay cannot be examined at this stage. 6. Mere the completion of an investigation does not entitle an accused to bail, especially in cases involving grave offences. The offences charged against accused No.2 is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The gravity of offence coupled with the stage of proceedings waves against the accused. The Apex Court in the case of MAHIPAL Vs. RAJESH KUMAR1 has held that the Court must consider the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, and prima-facie satisfaction before granting bail. Similarly in the case of KALYAN CHANDRA SARKAR Vs. RAJESH RANJAN ALIAS PAPPU YADAV2, it is held that in serious cases, bail cannot be granted as a matter of 1 (2020) 2 SCC 118 2 (2004) 7 SCC 528 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21404 CRL.P No. 12553 of 2025 course. This Court finds that the appellant has failed to make out a ground for grant of bail. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition filed by accused No.2 is hereby dismissed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3