- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2732 CRL.A No. 1604 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1604 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PRAVEEN S/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT YEROHALLI, 2ND ROAD, 2ND CROSS, NEAR SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU-560 091. 2. SRI ANANDA S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT VINAYAKANAGARA, D PALYA ROAD, GOWRIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561208. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI H.A. RAMALINGE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR A-1; SRI NITHIN GOWDA K.C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE FOR A-2) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SARJAPURA POLICE STATION, ANEKAL SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2732 CRL.A No. 1604 of 2025 DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI MANJUNATH S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT ANGADI BEEDI, DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI K. RAM SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND SPL. JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU THEREBY REJECTING THE BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED NOS.9 AND 11 HEREIN UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS 2023 IN CASE IN SPL.C.NO.331/2025 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT / POLICE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 61(2)(a), 103(1), 238(b), 55 READ WITH 190 OF BNS, 2023 AND SECTION 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST ACT 1989; AND CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2732 CRL.A No. 1604 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT Accused Nos.9 and 11 have preferred the present appeal against the impugned order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Spl. C. No.331/2025 dated 11.07.2025. 2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that on the basis of the complaint filed by Manjunath .A, Sarjapura Police have registered a case in Crime No.26/2025 against the unknown persons for the commission of offence. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer has arrested the appellants/accused Nos.9 and 11 and submitted the charge sheet against juvenile accused No.1 and other accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 103 (1), 189 (2), 191 (2), 191 (3), 61(2) (a), 238 (b), 55 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 (2) (v-a) of the Scheduled - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2732 CRL.A No. 1604 of 2025 Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The present appellants have filed application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail before the Trial Court. The same came to be rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 4. Respondent No.2-complainant appeared through counsel and filed his written objection. 5. I have heard the arguments on both sides. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, initially the name of the appellants were not shown in the FIR. Only after investigation, Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet without there being any sufficient materials to constitute the alleged offence. Accused Nos.9 and 11 are not directly or indirectly involved in the alleged crime. CW.1, CW.7, CW.8 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2732 CRL.A No. 1604 of 2025 CW.9, who are projected alleged eyewitnesses, have not given any statements against the appellants. The test of identification was not conducted. The alleged eyewitnesses are not the eyewitnesses to the incident. However, the Investigating Officer has figured them as an eyewitness. There are absolutely no materials on record to constitute the alleged offence against these accused and sought for allowance of this appeal. 7. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. In paragraph Nos.10 to 12, the trial Court has observed as under: “10. If facts and circumstances of this case and materials on record are considered, it is clear that there are no sufficient grounds for grant of regular bail to the accused No.9 and 11. It is because CW. 7 Ravichandra, CW. 8 Ganesh and CW. 9 Ranjith who are eye witnesses to the incident, have given statement before Investigating Officer stating occurrence of the incident in question and identifying the accused persons and their role in the incident. Further, car and bike used to commit offence have been seized by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2732 CRL.A No. 1604 of 2025 Investigating Officer in this case. The weapons used to commit the offences have been seized by Investigating Officer on voluntary statement of the accused persons. The Investigating Officer has also produced along with charge sheet the documents in proof of transfer of amount which is for consideration amount for the commission of the crime. These materials on record are sufficient at this stage to believe that the accused persons including accused No.9 and 11 have committed an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment. 11. No doubt, the accused No.9 and 11 have not themselves assaulted the deceased with any weapon. However, the accused No.9 and 11 were present at the scene of offence and actively participated and facilitated in the crime by accused No.9 watching guard at the scene of offence while accused No.11 being driver in a running car so that other accused persons may flee from scene of offence after commission of the crime. Thus, the accused No.9 and 11 were present at the scene of offence and actively participated in the crime by facilitating commission of the offence. 12. Further, merely because accused No.9 and 11 have been in custody and police have filed charge sheet is not sufficient to grant bail and that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2732 CRL.A No. 1604 of 2025 the court has to consider gravity of accusation and danger of accused absconding and reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced and put to danger have to be kept in mind (vide ILR 2016 Karnataka 1516 (State of Karnataka Vs. D.D.Sandeep). In the present case on hand, there are sufficient materials on record against the accused in the form of direct evidence. There is also chance of accused No.9 and 11 tampering with prosecution evidence and absconding and fleeing the justice. Hence keeping in, view the nature and gravity of offences and its effect on the society and sufficiency of material on record, it is just and proper to reject the regular bail application of accused No.9 and 11. Therefore, there are sufficient grounds to reject the bail application. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.” 8. It is also mentioned in the charge sheet that accused No.11 is involved in a serious and heinous offence and in this regard, case has been registered against him by Kumarswamy Layout police and he has having a criminal background and is a habitual offender. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2732 CRL.A No. 1604 of 2025 9. On careful examination of the materials placed before this Court, I do not find any legal or factual error in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. At this stage, if the accused/appellants are released on bail, it would affect the society at large and there is a possibility of tampering or threatening the prosecution witnesses. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The criminal appeal is dismissed. ii. The appellants are at liberty to move the bail application before the Trial Court after recording the Evidence of material witnesses. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28