Sri Naveen @ Naveen B @ Naveen Rao Vs State Ofkarnataka

SRI NAVEEN @ NAVEEN B @ NAVEEN RAO S/O BHARATH BHUSHAN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.4/2, 7TH CROSS KALYANI ROAD, MAGADI ROAD BENGALORE NAGAR BENGALURU CITY - 560 023.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI BINU M, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OFKARNATAKA BY K.P AGRAHARA P.S. REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.2224/2022 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.149/2022, REGISTERED BY THE K.P AGRAHARA P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.302, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, (CCH-62).

¶18

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

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:15803 CRL.P No. 4259 of 2025

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Accused in SC No.2224/2022 pending before the

¶24

Court of LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.149/2022 registered by Kempapura Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, is before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

FIR in Crime No.149/2022 was registered by Kempapura Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru, for the aforesaid offence against the petitioner herein based on the first information dated 19.09.2022 received from Vinod Kumar, brother of deceased Balakrishna. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 19.09.2022 and subsequently, remanded to judicial custody. Investigation in the case is completed and charge

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:15803 CRL.P No. 4259 of 2025

¶29

sheet has been filed against him for the aforesaid offence. His bail application filed before the jurisdictional Sessions

¶30

Court in Crl.Misc.No.880/2024 was rejected on 07.02.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶31

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶32

petitioner is in custody for the last more than two and half years. He has no other criminal antecedents. The material charge sheet witnesses have already been examined. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶33

Per contra, learned Addl. SPP has opposed the petition. She submits that material charge sheet witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. In the event, petitioner is enlarged on bail, he is likely to tamper with the prosecuting witnesses. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶34

A perusal of the material on record would go to show

¶35

that CWs 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are the material charge sheet witnesses in the present case and out of the aforesaid

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15803 CRL.P No. 4259 of 2025

¶37

material charge sheet witnesses, CWs 1, 6, 7 and 8 have already been examined before the Trial Court. The prosecution altogether has examined seven charge sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW7 out of the 36 charge sheet witnesses cited in the present case. Petitioner aged about

¶38

26 years, who has no other criminal antecedents is in custody for the last more than two and half years.

¶39

In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State

¶40

of Maharashtra and Another - 2024 SCC OnLine SC

¶41

1693 at paragraph No.19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

¶42

"19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime".

¶43

8. Since material charge sheet witnesses have already

¶44

been examined in the present case, there cannot be any

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:15803 CRL.P No. 4259 of 2025

¶47

apprehension that the petitioner is likely to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Out of 36 charge sheet witnesses, till date, only seven witnesses are examined. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶48

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in SC No.2224/2022 pending before the Court of LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.149/2022 registered by Kempapura Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶49

a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15803 CRL.P No. 4259 of 2025

¶51

the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶52

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶53

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶54

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶55

e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶56

Sd /-

¶57

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶58

DN

Sri Naveen @ Naveen B @ Naveen Rao v. State Ofkarnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Naveen @ Naveen B @ Naveen Rao v. State Ofkarnataka

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

Sri Dheeraj Alis Dhiraj Rana Vs State by

Vijaya Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Roshith K R Vs State by Ramamurthynagar P S

Saddam Vs State of Karnataka

Muthuraj @ Badar Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Vijay Vs State of Karnataka