Dismissed¶¶43

Mr. Santhosh Dhami v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2025CRL.P/10615/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, CRL.P No. 10615 of 2025, Justice Mohammad Nawaz, 31.10.2025; successive bail petition under S.439 CrPC / S.483 BNSS; murder charge Section 302 IPC; S.C.No.400/2023; Crime No.510/2022 Ramamurthynagar P.S.; earlier bail rejected 12.02.2024 in Crl.P.No.11838/2023; hostile witnesses PW.1 and PW.2 (CW.1, CW.3); CW.2 not yet examined; judicial custody since 30.11.2022; bail refused at this stage; liberty to reapply if trial not concluded within 4 months; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to move for bail afresh if the trial is not concluded within the next 4 months. ¶¶43

Mr. Santhosh Dhami Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:43807 CRL.P No. 10615 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10615 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. SANTHOSH DHAMI S/O RAJENDRADHAMI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O NO.44/1, RAGHUNATHA BUILDING, 4^TH FLOOR, HIGHLIGHT BUILDING, T C PALLY MAIN ROAD, MUNINANJAPPA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 016.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA N., ADVOCATE (P/H))

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMAMURTHYNAGAR P.S., BENGALURU, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1 (P/H))

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SC.NO.400/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.510/2022 OF RAMMURTHYNAGAR POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION UNDER 302 OF IPC.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:43807 CRL.P No. 10615 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This is a successive bail petition preferred by the petitioner, facing trial in S.C.No.400/2023 before the Court of XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶26

The petitioner has been charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The deceased by name Krishnakumari Ammai was working as a therapist in one Heaven Unisex and Spa situated in Horamavu. It is alleged by the prosecution that she was living with the petitioner in the room situated on the 4^th Floor of a building in T.C.Palya. On the date of incident, on 29.11.2022, petitioner is alleged to have picked up quarrel with her suspecting her character and assaulted with an iron rod and strangulated her to death.

¶27

This Court has elaborately considered the facts

¶28

and circumstances of the case in Crl.P.No.11838/2023 and

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43807 CRL.P No. 10615 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

after noticing that the offence alleged is heinous in nature and there are materials placed by the prosecution to show a prima facie case against the petitioner, rejected the said petition vide order dated 12.02.2024.

¶32

It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that CWs.1 to 3 are the material witnesses in this case and CW.1 has been examined as PW.1, CW.3 has been examined as PW.2 and both the said witnesses have turned hostile. He submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 30.11.2022, for nearly 3 years and his further detention in custody is not required and therefore, by imposing any conditions he may be enlarged on bail.

¶33

Learned High Court Government Pleader on the

¶34

other hand has opposed the prayer for bail contending that CW.2 i.e., another material witness is yet to be examined

¶35

and the petitioner is a native of Nepal and therefore, at this stage, if the petitioner is granted bail, there is

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:43807 CRL.P No. 10615 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

likelihood of him absconding and in that event it will be difficult for the prosecution to secure his presence.

¶40

It is not disputed by the State that CWs.1 and 3

¶41

examined as PWs.1 and 2 have turned hostile. However, CW2, another material witness is not yet examined. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that so far the said witness has not been secured by the prosecution before the trial Court for adducing evidence.

¶42

Since CW.2 has not been examined, this Court is of the considered view that at this stage, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. If the trial is not concluded within the next 4 months, petitioner is at liberty to move for bail.

¶43

With that liberty, petition is dismissed.

¶44

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶45

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Mr. Santhosh Dhami v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Santhosh Dhami 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B Guruprasad Vs State of Karnataka

Noorjahan Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Sudheendra Vs State of Karnataka

Amarnath Srikantachar Vs M/S Muthoot Finance Limited

Sri Vijay Kumar @ Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Muniswamy Reddy Vs State by Madanayakanahalli