Sri Yogesh Kumar v @ Handi Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Yogesh Kumar v @ Handi Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — bail refused and appeal dismissed; pending I.As. disposed of. As a consequential direction, the Sessions Court is directed to expedite the trial keeping in view the incarceration undergone by the appellant (para 19).

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/accused No.1 should be enlarged on bail on medical grounds, i.e., his spinal ailment (Lumbar Spondylosis and disc bulge at L2–L3) allegedly requiring surgery outside prison. +1 more

Court's answer

Medical grounds do not warrant bail: the accused is being provided medical treatment in Central Prison, has made no prayer or allegation that he is not getting proper medical attention, the ailment is not a serious one obliging consideration of the prayer, and the Sessions Judge has already directed the Superintendent of Central Prison to obtain a Spinal Cord Specialist's opinion; the appellant can approach the Sessions Court for appropriate direction.

Ratio / Principle

Incarceration undergone by the appellant by itself is not a ground to enlarge him on bail, since the offence alleged (murder) is heinous and punishable with death or imprisonment for life; the prosecution case rests not only on eyewitnesses but also on circumstantial evidence.

Key takeaways

In considering bail, the nature and gravity of the crime, potential threat to victims and prosecution witnesses, and the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice or getting involved in similar or other crimes must be taken into account; here the accused had three prior cases (Cr.Nos.362/2006, 400/2016, 69/2007) and a rowdy sheet opened against him.ratio¶14
The delay-in-trial ground fails because the trial is in progress, most of the witnesses have been examined, and as per the prosecution the conclusion of trial may not take a long time.ratio¶15
For the foregoing reasons the appeal is dismissed and the pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused — fourth successive attempt. High Court of Karnataka (Mohammad Nawaz, J.) dismissed CRL.A No. 1335 of 2024, filed under S.14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 15.04.2024 in Spl.Case No.170/2020 (Crime No.391/2019, Basaveshwaranagar P.S.; offences u/SS. 302 r/w 34 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act — murder of Sadashivamurthy by chopper attack on 14.12.2019), whereby the Special Judge had rejected the accused's bail application. Held: (i) incarceration of about five years by itself is no ground for bail where the offence is heinous and punishable with death or life imprisonment, the prosecution case resting on eyewitness, digital and circumstantial evidence; (ii) gravity of the offence, antecedents (three prior cases — Cr.Nos.362/2006, 400/2016, 69/2007 — and a rowdy sheet) and threat to witnesses weigh against release; (iii) the medical ground (Lumbar Spondylosis, disc bulge L2–L3, claimed need of surgery) does not avail, as the accused is treated in Central Prison, has not complained of inadequate medical attention, and the Sessions Judge has already directed a Spinal Cord Specialist's opinion — the appellant may seek appropriate directions from the Sessions Court; (iv) the delay ground fails as the trial is in progress with most witnesses examined. Pending I.As. disposed of; Sessions Court directed to expedite the trial in view of the incarceration. Counsel's reliance on Thapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322 (Art. 21 speedy-trial observation) was noted but the precedent was not applied by this Court.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11058 CRL.A No. 1335 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1335 OF 2024 (U/S 14(A) (2))

BETWEEN:

SRI. YOGESH KUMAR V @ HANDI S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.23, 5^TH CROSS, MANIVILAS GARDEN, MARUTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHANDRANNA N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally

signed by LAKSHMI T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVESHWARA NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001.

SRI. JAGADISH KUMAR K.B. S/O BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.384, 3^RD CROSS, 2^ND CROSS, MULAKATTAMMA

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11058 CRL.A No. 1335 of 2024

TEMPLE ROAD, KAMALANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. T. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2024 PASSED IN SPL.CASE NO.170/2020 (IN CRIME NO.391/2019 OF BASAVESHWARANAGAR POLICE) ON THE FILE OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-71) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF S.C./S.T PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT, 1989 AND TO GRANT INTERIM BAIL TO THE APPELLANT FOR A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS TO ENABLE HIM TO UNDERGO SURGERY IN THE FREE ATMOSPHERES AS HE DESIRES IN ANY PRIVATE HOSPITAL BENGALURU WITH THE COMPANY OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS TO SAVE HIS LIFE IN THE ABOVE CASE.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGEMENT, THIS DAY, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

DATE OF RESERVED THE JUDGMENT : 28.02.2025

DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT : 18.03.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11058 CRL.A No. 1335 of 2024

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.4.2024 passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru in Spl.Case No.170/2020, wherein the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application filed by the accused/appellant.

The appellant is seeking to set aside the impugned order and to enlarge him on bail in the above case pending before the learned Special Judge, arising out of Cr.No.391/2019 of Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station.

This is the fourth successive prayer made by the accused before this Court, to enlarge him on bail. This Court has already rejected the prayer for bail in Crl.A.No.7197/2020 vide order dated 7.12.2020, Crl.A.No.512/2022 vide order dated 19.4.2022 and Crl.A.No.2078/2023 vide order dated 11.12.2023.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11058 CRL.A No. 1335 of 2024

The present appeal is preferred praying to

enlarge the accused on bail on medical grounds and on the ground of delay in trial.

Briefly stated, it is the case of prosecution that on account of previous enmity, on 14.12.2019 at about 10.15 p.m., appellant/accused No.1 committed the murder of one Sadashivamurthy by assaulting him with a chopper on his chest, neck and head.

The learned counsel contended that the appellant/accused No.1 was arrested on 2.1.2020 and he is incarcerated behind bars for five years. He is the only earning member of the family and there is no one to look after his aged parents.

The learned counsel further contended that there are 45 charge sheet witnesses and therefore, the prosecution may take long time to conclude the trial, hence, the appellant has to suffer behind bars till then. Further, the prosecution has filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to add some more accused and the

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11058 CRL.A No. 1335 of 2024

learned Sessions Judge has allowed the said application, as against which, they have approached this Court for quashing the proceedings and the same is pending.

The learned counsel has further contended that

the appellant is suffering from major health problem and due to complication in the spinal cord he was taken to Victoria Hospital and according to the reports, he is suffering from Lumbar Spondylosis and Disc bulge at L2 – L3 level and he is facing unbearable pain and if a surgery is not conducted, he will be put to untold hardship.

It is also contended by the learned counsel that

the eyewitnesses and other material witnesses examined in this case have turned hostile and therefore, further detention of the appellant will amount to pre-trial conviction.

While disposing of Crl.A.No.512/2022, appellant

was permitted to move the Sessions Court for bail after the examination of eyewitnesses namely CWs.12 and 13.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11058 CRL.A No. 1335 of 2024

Subsequent to their examination, the learned Sessions Judge rejected his bail application, wherefore, he preferred Crl.A.No.2078/2023 before this Court. While dismissing the said appeal, this Court has taken into consideration the hostility of CWs.12 and 13, examined as PWs.4 and 3 before the trial Court. However, since the prosecution is also relying on circumstantial evidence, the said appeal was dismissed directing the trial Court to expedite the trial and also reserving liberty to the appellant to move the Sessions Court on any changed circumstances.

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has filed statement of objections, wherein he has contended that the prosecution case is based on eyewitnesses, digital evidence and circumstantial evidence. It is contended that the complainant has identified the appellant as the accused who assaulted the deceased, from the CCTV camera footage. It is further contended that the witnesses were won over by the accused persons.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11058 CRL.A No. 1335 of 2024

The learned HCGP appearing for the State has contended that the learned Sessions Judge has thoroughly considered the medical grounds urged by the appellant and as there was no need for immediate surgery, directed Superintendent of Central Prison to get the opinion of the Specialist. He has further contended that the appellant has

3 more cases registered against him in the past. He submitted that the trial Court may be directed to expedite the trial as most of the witnesses are already examined.

The learned counsel for appellant has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Thapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2025 SCC online SC 322 and stressed on the observations made at para-14, wherein it is observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of 6-7 years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed. The

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11058 CRL.A No. 1335 of 2024

stress of long trials on accused persons who remain innocent until proven guilty - can also be significant.”

This Court has already rejected the prayer of the appellant/accused No.1 for bail, considering the gravity of the offence and the material collected against him. The case of prosecution is not just based on the evidence of eyewitnesses, but also on circumstantial evidence. The incarceration undergone by the appellant by itself is not a ground to enlarge him on bail, considering that the offence alleged is heinous in nature, punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The conduct of the accused also play an important role while considering the bail application. Against the appellant, 3 more cases were registered in Cr.No.362/2006 under Section 399 and 402 IPC at Basaveshwaranagar Police Station, Cr.No.400/2016 under Section 506, 364A, 120B, 448, 342 IPC at HSR Layout Police Station and Cr.No.69/2007 under Section 379 IPC at Rajagopalanagar Police Station. A rowdy sheet was opened against him at Basaveshwaranagar Police

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11058 CRL.A No. 1335 of 2024

Station, as per the report of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vijayanagar Sub-Division, Bangalore City. While granting or refusing the bail, the nature and gravity of the crime, potential threat to the victims and the prosecution witnesses, possibility of accused fleeing from justice and getting involved in similar or other crimes have to be taken into consideration.

In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the trial is in progress and most of the witnesses have been examined. As per prosecution, conclusion of trial may not take a long time.

Insofar as the medical grounds urged by the appellant, it is submitted that there is bulging of anterior thecal sac at L2 and L3 level causing mild spinal canal stenosis. Further, there is moderate spinal canal stenosis at L4-L5 level. The appellant was treated at Victoria Hospital. According to the learned counsel, the accused requires surgery in a proper hospital.

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11058 CRL.A No. 1335 of 2024

The learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the medical grounds urged by the appellant. Accused is being provided medical treatment. It is observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the accused has not made any prayer or allegation that he is not getting any proper medical attention in central prison. The ailment or suffering of the accused does not obliges to consider the prayer since it is not a serious ailment. While rejecting the bail application, the learned Sessions judge has directed the Superintendent of Central Prison to get the opinion of the Spinal Cord Specialist with regard to plan of surgery/ non-availability of any of such facility of the medical condition of the accused. Hence, the appellant can approach the Sessions Court for appropriate direction.

For the forgoing reasons, appeal is dismissed.

Pending I.As. stand disposed of.

NC: 2025:KHC:11058 CRL.A No. 1335 of 2024

11 -

The Sessions Court is however, directed to

expedite the trial, keeping in view the incarceration

undergone by the appellant.

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

JUDGE

TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 Ct:ar