Sudarshan G Vs State of Karnataka by

SUDARSHAN G. S/O GAVISIDDA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, (24 YEARS AS ON TODAY) R/AT BESAGARAHALLI ADDA ROAD VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-572 101.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. RAKSHA KEERTHANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR POLICE STATION, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN S.C.NO.217/2023 (CRIME NO.167/2022) OF THE RESPONDENT RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR POLICE STATION, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 201, 379, 120(b) R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU.

¶17

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

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:21765 CRL.P No. 7289 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Accused No.1 in SC No.217/2023 pending before the Court of LV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.167/2022 registered by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 379, 120B and 34 of IPC, is before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

FIR in Crime No.167/2022 was registered by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, against unknown persons based on the first information dated 18.06.2022 received from Hemanth Kumara S/o Shankarachari. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 18.06.2022. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 and another juvenile for the aforesaid offences. Bail application filed by accused No.1/petitioner was rejected by the Trial Court and therefore,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21765 CRL.P No. 7289 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

he had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.1190/2024 which was dismissed on 18.04.2024 with liberty to the petitioner to revive the bail application after examination of CW6 and CW9 is completed before the Trial Court. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court in this successive bail application.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner who has no other criminal antecedents is in custody from 18.06.2022 onwards. CW6 and CW9 are examined before the Trial Court as PW3 and PW4. Out of the 52 charge sheet witnesses, till date, only four charge sheet witnesses are examined. Accused No.2 has been already enlarged on bail in the present case. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶30

Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the petition however does not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶31

Petitioner who has no other criminal antecedents is in custody for the last more than three years. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Accused No.2,

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21765 CRL.P No. 7289 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

who is the father of the petitioner has been granted regular bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.6778/2023 disposed of on 28.08.2023. CW6 and CW9, who are the material charge sheet witnesses in the present case have been examined completely before the Trial Court as PW3 and PW4. Earlier bail application filed by the petitioner in Crl.P.No.1190/2024 was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to revive his bail application after CW6 and CW9 are completely examined before the Trial Court. Out of 52 charge sheet witnesses cited in the present case, only four charge sheet witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court. Therefore, the trial being completed and the case being disposed of on merits in the near future is very remote.

¶35

In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of

¶36

Maharashtra and Another - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 at paragraph No.19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

¶37

"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

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:21765 CRL.P No. 7289 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

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".

¶42

Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter and the

¶43

period of incarceration of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that without expressing any opinion on 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:-

¶44

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in SC No.217/2023 pending before the Court of LV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.167/2022 registered by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 379, 120B and 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶45

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

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:21765 CRL.P No. 7289 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶50

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;

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

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.

¶54

Sd /- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶55

DN

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76

Sudarshan G v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

Sudarshan G v. State of Karnataka by

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

Irshad Vs Superitendent of Customs

Appayappa @ Appaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Mucha Sheik @ Bappi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shashikumar @ Shashi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Rangaswamy M v Vs State by Inspector of Police