Mohammad Yunus @ Yunus Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE ABOVE NAMED PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN CR.NO.79/2020 (S.C.NO.149/2021) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 302 R/W 149 OF IPC OF DEVARAJEEVANA HALLY P.S.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:44565 CRL.P No. 10270 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

PENDING ON THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section

¶27

439 of CrPC/Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant bail in Crime No.79 of 2020 of Devarajeevanahalli Police Station pending in SC No.149

¶28

of 2021 on the file of the learned LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH75) registered for the offences punishable under Sections

¶29

143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, the petitioner is in judicial custody since last five years eight months. The material witnesses have

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44565 CRL.P No. 10270 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

already been examined. The accused Nos.2 and 3 have been granted bail in Crl.P No.5610/2025, and accused Nos.5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 have been granted bail in Crl.P Nos.4934, 7208 and 7226 of 2025. The petitioner is similarly placed to that of other accused, who have already

¶35

been granted bail by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. As the material witnesses are already examined, there is no threat by this petitioner to the material witnesses. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶36

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State would contend that, the offences alleged against the petitioner are heinous offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. CWs.13 to 16 are eye witnesses to the incident. The postmortem report indicates that, the deceased had sustained twenty nine injuries. If the petitioner is granted bail, he will abscond and not available for trial. With this, he prayed for rejection of the petition.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:44565 CRL.P No. 10270 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court

¶41

has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

¶42

While considering the bail petitions of accused

¶43

Nos.5, 6, 9, 10 and 11, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court

¶44

has observed at para 7, and the same reads thus:

¶45

"7. The material on record would go to show that FIR in the present case was initially registered against four named persons and others. During the course of investigation, 14 persons were arrested and in the charge sheet, petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.5, 6, 9, 10 and 11. As per the charge sheet, CW1 is the first informant and CWs.13 to 16 are the alleged eye witnesses in the present case. The aforesaid eye witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court as PWs.6 and 11 to 14 and according to learned counsel for the petitioners, all the aforesaid eye witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioners who have no other criminal antecedents are in custody for the last more than five years. Considering the aforesaid aspect accused Nos.2 and 3 have been enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.5610/2025 disposed of on 29.4.2025. Considering the period of petitioners' incarceration, I am of the opinion that without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, prayer

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44565 CRL.P No. 10270 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

made by the petitioners for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively."

¶49

On perusal of column-17 of the charge sheet,

¶50

the accusation against the petitioner and other accused, who have been granted bail, is that, they assaulted the deceased with weapon and caused injuries and committed his murder. The petitioner is similarly placed to that of other accused, who have been granted bail by co-ordinate Branch of this Court. The material witnesses are already examined. The petitioner is in custody since last five years eight months.

¶51

Considering the above aspects, the petitioner

¶52

has made out a case for grant of bail with conditions.

¶53

In the result, the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i) The petition is allowed.

¶56

ii) The petitioner is granted bail in SC No.149 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall unit, Bengaluru

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44565 CRL.P No. 10270 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

(CCH-75) arising out of Crime No.79 of 2020 of Devarajeevanahalli Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of PC subject to following conditions.

¶60

a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the life sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

¶61

b) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses;

¶62

c) The petitioner shall attend on all dates of hearing before the Trial Court, unless exempted and co-operate for speedy disposal of the case;

¶63

d) The petitioner shall not involve in commission of similar offences;

¶64

e) 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 of.

¶65

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶66

BKM

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Mohammad Yunus @ Yunus v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Yunus @ Yunus v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. S. Bhuvaneshwaran Vs State of Karnataka

Sridhar Lakshman Sanadi Vs State by Station House Officer

Sri K N Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Mohammed Asif Risaldar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Maruthesh @ Kiran Vs State by Kengeri Police Station

Mr Sandeep K Vs State of Karnataka