Dismissed¶67

Sri Tirumala Devarapalli Gangadara @ Gangadhar T v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2025CRL.P/6244/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

regular bail dismissed; Section 439 BNSS 2023; successive bail application; murder for gain; IPC Sections 302, 201, 120B r/w 34; Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station Crime No.216/2021; SC No.1497/2021 LXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru; strangulation clutch wire; stabbing screwdriver; deceased Shantharaju and Premalatha; custody since 23.08.2021; delay in trial no ground; trial at fag end; all co-accused in custody; circumstantial evidence; Neeru Yadav (2016) 5 SCC 422; expedite trial direction; Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; S Vishwajith Shetty; CRL.P No. 6244 of 2025

What did the court decide?

None; regular bail refused. Trial Court requested to complete the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. ¶67

Sri Tirumala Devarapalli Gangadara @ Gangadhar T Vs the… — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; regular bail refused. Trial Court requested to complete the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner/accused No.2, in custody since 23.08.2021, should be enlarged on regular bail in SC No.1497/2021 (arising out of Crime No.216/2021 for offences punishable under Sections 201, 302, 120B r/w Section 34 IPC) in this successive application under Section 439 BNSS, 2023, his principal ground being the nearly four years of custody and delay in trial.

¶25

Court's answer

Mere fact that the accused has been in custody since 23.08.2021 does not entitle him to bail; the prayer for bail on the ground of delay in trial cannot be entertained, more so because the trial is at the fag end and all other accused are in custody.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

The crime is heinous and grave in nature — the accused committed the murder of the aged couple (Shantharaju and Premalatha) for gain; material charge sheet witnesses have been examined and enlargement of the petitioner risks delaying the trial.

¶42

Key takeaways

Petition dismissed; however, since the accused persons are in custody, the Trial Court is requested to complete the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.ratio¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (S Vishwajith Shetty, J.) — CRL.P No. 6244 of 2025, decided 22.07.2025: Successive regular bail application under Section 439 BNSS, 2023 by accused No.2 in SC No.1497/2021 (LXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru), arising out of Crime No.216/2021 of Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 201, 302, 120B r/w Section 34 IPC — alleged conspiracy and murder of the elderly couple Shantharaju and Premalatha for gain, by strangulation with clutch wire and stabbing with screwdriver, followed by theft of gold and silver jewellery. Petitioner in custody since 23.08.2021 (nearly four years); earlier bail rejected by the Sessions Court on 19.02.2022; Crl.P.No.4/2022 dismissed as withdrawn on 07.09.2022; Crl.P.No.1206/2023 dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.09.2024. Held: prolonged custody and delay in trial are not grounds for bail where the trial, in which material witnesses have been examined, is at the fag end and all co-accused are in custody; the crime is heinous and grave (murder of an aged couple for gain); relying on Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 5 SCC 422 (paras 13–15), discretion must be exercised judiciously. Petition dismissed; Trial Court requested to complete the trial and dispose of the case expeditiously. (Paras 7–10)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:27660 CRL.P No. 6244 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6244 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI TIRUMALA DEVARAPALLI GANGADARA @ GANGADHAR T S/O NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT PULAKUNTA VILLAGE SHREEKANTAPURAM VILLAGE AND POST, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDHRAPRADESH STATE - 515 201.

¶11

&PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI RAJANNA B.C, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY - 560 078 REPTD BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)

¶17

&RESPONDENT

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.216/2021, S.C NO.1497/2021 OF KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED O/P/U/S 201, 302, 120B R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH66).

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:27660 CRL.P No. 6244 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Accused No.2 in SC No.1497/2021 pending before the Court of LXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.216/2021 registered by Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, Benglauru, for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302, 120B and 34 of IPC, is before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 439 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

FIR in Crime No.216/2021 was registered by Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, Benglauru, initially for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against unknown persons based on the first information dated 20.08.2021 received from Christina P W/o George. During the course of investigation of the case, petitioner herein was arrested on 23.08.2021 and subsequently, remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against four persons and petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. His bail application filed before the

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:27660 CRL.P No. 6244 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

jurisdictional Sessions Court in SC No.1497/2021 was rejected on 19.02.2022. Therefore, he had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.4/2022 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.09.2022. Thereafter, he had filed Crl.P.No.1206/2023 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.09.2024. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court in this successive bail application seeking regular bail.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for the last nearly four years. There are many other charge sheet witnesses who are required to be examined in the present case. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶32

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition on the ground that accused have committed heinous offence in which two persons were murdered. The crime has been committed for gain. The witnesses examined before the Trial Court have supported the case of the prosecution and the trial is at the fag end. All the other accused are in custody and in the event he is enlarged on bail and if he does not cooperate before the Trial

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:27660 CRL.P No. 6244 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Court, the trial in the case is likely to be effected. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶37

FIR in the present case was registered against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.1 to 4 were arrested. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the said four persons. As per the charge sheet allegations, accused No.1 was a tenant in the premises belonging to deceased Shantharaju and his wife Premalatha. Deceased Shantharaju and his wife Premalatha had no issues. Accused No.1 had therefore conspired with other accused persons to commit the murder of Shantharaju and his wife Premalatha and rob the gold and silver jewelry and other valuables which he had seen inside their house.

¶38

On the date of incident, accused Nos.1 to 4 having entered the house of deceased had caught hold of Premalatha and had committed her murder by strangulating her neck with a clutch wire. Thereafter, they had entered into the room in which Shantharaju was sleeping and committed his murder by stabbing him repeatedly with a screwdriver. After committing murder of Shantharaju and his wife Premalath, accused had

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:27660 CRL.P No. 6244 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

escaped from the said house along with gold and silver jewelry

¶42

and other valuables which were found in the house of the deceased, which were subsequently recovered after the accused were arrested in the present case. Before the Trial Court, the material charge sheet witnesses are examined and as rightly contended by learned HCGP, the trial is at the fag end. All the other accused persons are in custody and in the event, petitioner is enlarged on bail and if he does not cooperate before the Trial Court, there are chances of trial being delayed. In addition to the same, crime committed in the present case is heinous and grave in nature. Accused have committed murder of the aged couple for gain.

¶43

In the case of NEERU YADAV VS STATE OF UTTAR

¶44

PRADESH & ANOTHER - (2016) 5 SCC 422 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 13 to 15, has observed as under:

¶45

"13. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the concept of liberty and its curtailment by law. It is an established fact that a crime though committed against an individual, in all cases it does not retain an individual character. It, on occasions and in certain offences, accentuates and causes harm to the society. The victim may be

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:27660 CRL.P No. 6244 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

an individual, but in the ultimate eventuate, it is the society which is the victim. A crime, as is understood, creates a dent in the law and order situation. In a civilised society, a crime disturbs orderliness. It affects the peaceful life of the society. An individual can enjoy his liberty which is definitely of paramount value but he cannot be a law unto himself. He cannot cause harm to others. He cannot be a nuisance to the collective. He cannot be a terror to the society; and that is why Edmund Burke, the great English thinker, almost two centuries and a decade back eloquently spoke thus:

¶50

<Men are qualified for civil liberty,

¶51

in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsel of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:27660 CRL.P No. 6244 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.

¶55

14. E. Barrett Prettyman, a retired Chief Judge of US Court of Appeals had to state thus:

¶56

<In an ordered society of mankind there is no such thing as unrestricted liberty, either of nations or of individuals. Liberty itself is the product of restraints; it is inherently a composite of restraints; it dies when restraints are withdrawn. Freedom, I say, is not an absence of restraints; it is a composite of restraints. There is no liberty without order. There is no order without systematised restraint. Restraints are the substance without which liberty does not exist. They are the essence of liberty. The great problem of the democratic process is not to strip men of restraints merely because they are restraints. The great problem is to design a system of restraints which will nurture the maximum development of man9s

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:27660 CRL.P No. 6244 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

capabilities, not in a massive globe of faceless animations but as a perfect realisation, of each separate human mind, soul and body; not in mute, motionless meditation but in flashing, thrashing activity.=

¶60

15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner."

¶61

Considering the aforesaid, merely for the reason that the accused is in custody from 23.08.2021, his prayer for grant of

¶62

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:27660 CRL.P No. 6244 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

bail on the ground of delay in trial cannot be entertained more

¶66

so, for the reason that the trial in the case is at the fag end and all the other accused are in custody. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner needs to be rejected.

¶67

Accordingly, petition is dismissed. However, taking into consideration that accused persons are in custody, the Trial Court is requested to complete the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.

¶68

Sd /- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶69

Sri Tirumala Devarapalli Gangadara @ Gangadhar T v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Tirumala Devarapalli Gangadara @ Gangadhar T 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

Sheak Muzamil Ahamad Alias Shaik Muzammil Ahmed Vs State by

Sri Akbar Baig Vs the State of Karnataka

Thippesha Alias Thippeswamy N. Vs the State of Karnataka by Challakere Police Station

Devaraj, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Prasanna Kumar Vs State by

Umesh Vs State by Karnataka