Dismissed¶61

Tejas @ Samrat v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2025CRL.A/1721/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tejas @ Samrat v. State of Karnataka by Nazarbad Police Station & Anr., CRL.A No. 1721 of 2025 (KHC, decided 15.10.2025, G Basavaraja J.): bail under S.439 CrPC refused to accused No.1 in the Balaraj murder case (Ss.341, 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC; S.3(2)(va) SC/ST (POA) Act; Crime No.90/2023, Nazarbad P.S., Mysuru; SC No.690/2023). Parity with released co-accused Sanjay (Crl.A.13/2025, 03.09.2025) and Kiran (Crl.A.1666/2024, 30.10.2024) rejected; eye-witness account of knife stab to ribs; post-mortem: death due to sharp injury to thorax; blood alcohol 74.04 mg/100ml noted by State; respondent No.2 Bhanumathi served and unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed and the trial Court's order was left undisturbed. ¶61

Tejas @ Samrat Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41219 CRL.A No. 1721 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1721 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

TEJAS @ SAMRAT S/O UMASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, RESIDENT OF #257/1, 7^TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, MYSURU CITY PIN-570029

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SHARAS CHANDRA M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NAZARBAD POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT, (REP. BY THE SPP, HIGH COURT PREMISES, BENGALURU CITY -560001.

¶14

SMT. BHANUMATHI, W/O LATE B.M. DORESWAMY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDENT OF #210, 6^TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, MYSURU CITY PIN - 571130

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1,

¶17

VIDE COURT ORDER DATED: 15.10.2025 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:41219 CRL.A No. 1721 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU IN SPL.C.NO.690/2023 (CRIME NO.90/2023 OF NAZARBAD P.S.,) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341,302,34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE MYSURU.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

The appellant, who is accused No.1 has preferred this appeal against the order dated 13^th June 2025 passed in SC No.690 of 2023 by the VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru (for short "the trial Court").

¶26

Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant has filed bail Application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to release him on bail. It is alleged that, Nazarbad Police filed Charge-sheet against the appellant and others for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 302, 201

¶27

read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attorcities) Act, 1989.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41219 CRL.A No. 1721 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

It is alleged in the charge sheet that as per column No.

¶31

17 of charge sheet case of the prosecution is that on 18.08.2023 deceased– alaraj had gone to Ooty and when he did not return, C.W.1 – mother of deceased-Balaraj asked accused Nos.1 and 2 who were acquainted with the deceased, to make a phone call to the deceased–Balaraj and they contacted Balaraj over phone and gave it to C.W.1, Balaraj told her that he was still in Ooty. Thereafter, on 19.08.2023 accused Nos. 1 and 2 made phone call over mobile of deceased-Balaraj, at that time, there was a quarrel between them over phone. In that regard, on 19.08.2023, at about 09.20 pm, the deceased–Balaraj came to Mysuru and when he was in a circle, at that time, accused Nos.1 to 3 were waiting for him and started quarrelling with the deceased–Balaraj and abused him in filthy language. At that time, accused No.1 made phone call to his father–accused No.4 and informed him that the deceased–Balaraj was abusing him in filthy language. Accused No.4 came to the main road of Vidyanagar and when the deceased–Balaraj was going on the said road, accused Nos.1 to 3 were following him and at that time, accused No. 1 told his father–accused No.4 to catch hold of the deceased–Balaraj and accused No.4 caught hold of the

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41219 CRL.A No. 1721 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

deceased–Balaraj and at that time accused No. 1 quarreled with

¶35

the deceased–Balaraj and took knife which was with accused No. 2 and slashed on the neck of the deceased and caused injury. When the deceased was running to escape from them, at that time this accused No. 3 held the leg of the deceased and made him to fall and at that time, accused No.2 took knife from accused No.1 and assaulted with the said knife on right rib of deceased–Balaraj. Thereafter, when the deceased–Balaraj tried to escape, accused Nos. 2 and 3 made him to fall and at that time again accused No.2 assaulted the deceased on his leg and other parts with knife. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained.

¶36

Sri H. Sharass Chandra, learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that this Court has already granted bail to accused No.2-Sanjay and accused No.3-Kiran in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2025 and 1666 of 2024 decided on dated 03^rd September, 2025 and 30^th October, 2024, respectively. Learned counsel would submit that deceased died due to assault made by accused No.2. This Court has already granted bail to accused No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2025 (supra). He has also produced the copy of the orders passed by this

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:41219 CRL.A No. 1721 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Court. Therefore, on the principle of parity accused No.1 is also entitled for bail. CW2 and 3 are the eye-witnesses, but they were not present on the spot and are planted witnesses. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.

¶41

As against this, Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, would submit that there are two eyewitnesses in this case. The deceased died not due to cardiac arrest. The postmortem report reveals that that death is due to sharp injury sustained to the thorax. However, the deceased has consumed ethane alcohol (74.04 mg per 100ml of blood at the time of death). There are multiple injuries on the dead body. Prosecution papers reveals that accused No.1 stabbed the deceased with knife. Since there are serious allegations against accused No.1, the principle of parity is not applicable to the case on hand and on all these grounds, it is sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶42

Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials placed before me, the following points would arise for consideration:

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:41219 CRL.A No. 1721 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Whether the appellant/Accused No.1 has made

¶47

out ground to interfere with order impugned?

¶48

What order?

¶49

In criminal Appeal No.1666 of 2024 dated 30^th October 2024, at paragraph 7, this Court has observed as under:

¶50

" 7. As per column No. 17 of the charge sheet and considering the statements of the eye witnesses – C.W.2 and C.W.3, it is clear that no serious overt act is alleged against appellant - accused No. 3. Serious overt act is alleged against accused Nos.1 and 2 who are alleged to have assaulted the deceased – Balaraj with knife. Allegation against this appellant - accused No.3 is pulling the leg of the deceased – Balaraj and making him to fall on the ground. As charge sheet is filed, appellant - accused No.3 is not required for custodial interrogation. Considering all these, the appellant - accused No.3 has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. "

¶51

At the first instance, though the Co-ordinate Bench

¶52

has expressed the opinion that there is serious overt act against accused 1 and 2, subsequently has granted bail by another co-

¶53

ordinate Bench to accused No.2. Therefore, I have carefully examined the prosecution papers, including the postmortem

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:41219 CRL.A No. 1721 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

report. The eye-witnesses have clearly stated in their statement

¶58

that accused-Tejas has stabbed with knife towards the ribs of deceased Balaraj. Post-mortem report reveals that the death is due to sharp injury sustained to the thorax. Therefore, the principle of parity is not applicable to accuse No.1. Since there are prime facie materials to attract the alleged offences against accused No.1, I am of the considered opinion that it is not just proper to allow this appeal. I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.

¶59

For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:

¶60

O R D E R

¶61

i) Appeal dismissed.

¶62

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶63

lnn

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Tejas @ Samrat v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejas @ Samrat v. the 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

M/S Maragadarsi Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mr. R Sanjay

J C Flowers Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shamstabrezkha Jagirdar Age Major

Sri.B.Siddaiah Dead by His Lr'S Smt. Siddamma Vs Sri.K.Chandra Shekarappa S/O Kariyappa

J C Flowers Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vinod N

J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mahesha R

Nagaiah Vs State of Karnataka by