Manju a @ Magga Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN S.C NO.304/2020 OF CR.NO.422/2019 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE 66TH ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:37394 CRL.P No. 10705 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶24

learned HCGP for the State. Perused the material on record.

¶25

Petitioner, arraigned as accused No.1 is facing trial along with accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code in S.C.No.304/2020 before the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-66), Bangalore City.

¶26

It is the case of prosecution that deceased Santosh.K was a friend of the petitioner. He had taken nude video of accused Nos.1 and 2, who are husband and wife, and was blackmailing them. In this background, it is alleged that the petitioner/accused No.1 committed his murder and accused No.2 helped him to dispose of the dead body.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37394 CRL.P No. 10705 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Petitioner was arrested on 19.11.2019.

¶30

Crl.P.No.3717/2020 preferred by him was dismissed by an order dated 23.10.2020. One more petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.P.No.1040/2021 was dismissed for nonprosecution on 27.01.2022.

¶31

There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. Entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for nearly 6 years. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in

¶32

the case of Union of India vs. K.A.Najeeb (AIR 2021 SC 712) . Para 16 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

¶33

“This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:37394 CRL.P No. 10705 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.”

¶38

Accused No.2 is on bail. Petitioner is said to be a permanent resident of Bangalore. He has undertaken to furnish adequate surety to ensure his presence before the Trial Court. Considering the long incarceration of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that by imposing necessary conditions, relief sought in the petition can be granted. Accordingly the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) Petition is allowed.

¶41

ii) Petitioner/accused in Crime No.422/2019 of Nandini Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:37394 CRL.P No. 10705 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

pending in S.C.No.304/2020 on the file of Court of

¶46

LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-66), shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶47

He 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.

¶48