Dismissed¶44

Mohan N v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2025CRL.A/1570/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refusal; successive criminal appeal; accused No.3 Mohan N; Cr.No.197/2024 Hosakote P.S.; Spl.C.No.910/2024 Bengaluru Rural; Sections 302, 307, 109, 114, 120(B) r/w 34 IPC; Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA) Act 2015; supari killer; parity principle; Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (2021) 6 SCC 230; no changed circumstances; custody 1 year 3 months; charge not framed; appeal rejected.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no ground to enlarge the appellant on bail and holds that no changed circumstance is made out, in view of the discussion in paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of its earlier judgment in Criminal Appeal No.530/2025; accordingly the criminal appeal is rejected. ¶42

Mohan N Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant (accused No.3) should be enlarged on bail in Cr.No.197/2024 in this successive appeal, notwithstanding the earlier rejection in Criminal Appeal No.530/2025, given contentions that other accused have been enlarged on bail, charge is not framed, a discharge application is pending, and he has been in custody for 1 year 3 months.

¶33

Court's answer

¶42

Ratio / Principle

Merely being in custody for 1 year 3 months is not a ground to enlarge the appellant on bail in a heinous offence of murder.

¶38

Key takeaways

Considering the overt-act allegation and the appellant's role — a supari killer who took the other accused persons along with him to eliminate the victim, with recovery made at his instance and C.W.1 an eyewitness — bail is refused even though charge is not framed and another accused's discharge application is pending.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (H.P. Sandesh J.) — Criminal Appeal No.1570 of 2025 under Section 14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA) Act, decided 29.10.2025. Successive bail application of accused No.3 (Mohan N) in Cr.No.197/2024 of Hosakote P.S. (offences under Sections 302, 307, 109, 114, 120(B) r/w 34 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act 2015 (POA)), whose earlier appeal (Criminal Appeal No.530/2025, judgment dated 17.04.2025) was rejected after observing that he was the 'architect' of the crime and a supari killer who conspired with accused Nos.1 and 2 and led accused Nos.4 to 6. Contentions that co-accused were enlarged, charge remained unframed and a discharge application was pending, and that he had been in custody for 1 year 3 months, were held insufficient: invoking Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and Another, (2021) 6 SCC 230 (parity requires assessment of each accused's overt-acts), the Court held mere custody duration is not a ground for bail in a heinous Section 302 murder, found recovery at the appellant's instance and C.W.1 an eyewitness, concluded no changed circumstances existed, and rejected the appeal.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:43256 CRL.A No. 1570 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1570 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MOHAN N, S/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT HULIMANGALA VILLAGE JIGANIHOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOSKOTE P.S., BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUIDILNG BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

CHANNAKESHAVA S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT GANGAPURA VILLAGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU – 562 122.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:43256 CRL.A No. 1570 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.910/2024 ON 23.07.20252, TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.197/2024 REGISTERED BY HOSAKOTE P.S. BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 307, 109, 114, 120(B) R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST ACT 2015 (POA), PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.910/2024.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned High

¶27

Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State.

¶28

This is a successive criminal appeal filed by accused No.3. Earlier, this Court considered the appeal of this appellant vide judgment dated 17.04.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.530/2025. While rejecting the appeal, this Court taken note of the role played by this appellant and also made an observation that this appellant is the architect of the crime in committing the murder by taking supari and eliminated the deceased. This Court also taken note in paragraph No.7 that

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43256 CRL.A No. 1570 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

this appellant conspired with accused Nos.1 and 2 and thereafter, he himself took accused Nos.4 to 6 along with him, in order to implement the conspiracy and inflicted injury to the deceased with iron rod. There was recovery at the instance of this appellant, though it may be a joint recovery at the instance of other accused persons, the question of parity does not arise as held in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

¶32

RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD V. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER reported in ( 2021) 6 SCC 230, wherein the Apex Court held that while invoking the principles of parity, the Court has to take note of the overt-act of each of the accused.

¶33

Now, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that other accused persons have been enlarged on bail and also one of the accused has filed an application for discharge and the same is pending for consideration and charge is also not framed. The counsel also would submit that the appellant is in custody from last 1 year 3 months. Hence, he may be enlarged and bail.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:43256 CRL.A No. 1570 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State would submit that this Court while rejecting the bail petition in detail taken note of the material available on record and observation is made that the appellant is not entitled for bail on the ground of parity, in view of the discussion made in the judgment of the Apex Court and the appellant has not made out any changed circumstance to enlarge him on bail.

¶38

Having considered the grounds urged by before this Court and also considering the overt-act allegation against this appellant and also the role played by this appellant, merely because he is in custody from 1 year 3 months, the same is not a ground to enlarge him on bail in a heinous offence of murder. No doubt, the counsel would submit that charge is not framed and one of the accused has filed an application for discharge, the same is yet to be considered. When an heinous offence under Section 302 is invoked and this appellant is also a supari killer and he took the other accused persons along with him to eliminate the victim and when the recovery is made at the instance of this appellant and C.W.1 is an eye witness to the

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:43256 CRL.A No. 1570 of 2025

¶40

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

incident, I do not find any ground to enlarge the appellant on bail and no changed circumstance is made out in view of the discussion made by this Court earlier in paragraph Nos.6 and 7

¶43

of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.530/2025.

¶44

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is rejected.

¶45

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶46

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

Mohan N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nagaiah Vs B M Nissar Ahamed

Brahmachari Vs S. Ramamurthy

Shri.K.N.Venkatareddy Vs Kadirappa

Sri Suresh Jollera Vs Sri. Basappa

Sri N Keshav Chandra Vs State of Karnataka

Manjunath @ R C Manjunath Vs Smt. Renukamma @ C Renuka