Dismissed¶51

Vijay @ Viji v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2026CRL.P/12553/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (K.S. Hemalekha, J.; 21-04-2026) in CRL.P No. 12553 of 2025 under S.483 BNSS, 2023 / S.439 Cr.P.C. dismisses bail plea of accused No.2 (aged 19) in S.C.No.849/2025 / Crime No.48/2025, Upparpete P.S., Bengaluru — Sections 103(1), 311 r/w 3(5) BNS 2023 knife-assault death at KSRTC bus stand, Majestic; common intention; no overt-act objection premature; eyewitness evidence pending; gravity and stage outweigh; relied: Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528.

What did the court decide?

The contention that no specific overt act was attributed to accused No.2 cannot be accepted at the bail stage; the prosecution case indicates accused Nos.1 and 2 acted in furtherance of their common intention, and the absence of a distinct overt act is a matter to be tested during trial.

Vijay @ Viji Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether accused No.2 (petitioner, aged about 19 years) should be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.849/2025 (Crime No.48/2025, Upparpete P.S.), for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 311 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, pending before the 67th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶18

Court's answer

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The contention that the complainant is not an eye witness and that the case rests on hearsay cannot be examined at the bail stage, since the charge sheet indicates the presence of an eye witness whose evidence is yet to be recorded.

¶43

Key takeaways

Mere completion of investigation does not entitle an accused to bail, especially in cases involving grave offences; custodial interrogation being unnecessary is therefore not a ground for enlargement by itself.ratio¶44
The offences charged against accused No.2 are punishable with death or imprisonment for life; the gravity of the offence coupled with the stage of the proceedings weighs against the accused.ratio¶44
Applying the parameters laid down in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (nature of accusation, severity of punishment, prima-facie satisfaction) and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (bail cannot be granted as a matter of course in serious cases), the appellant failed to make out a ground for grant of bail, and the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — S.483 BNSS, 2023 (S.439 Cr.P.C. petition) — Rejection affirmed in effect; petition dismissed. Petitioner/accused No.2, aged about 19 years, sought bail in S.C.No.849/2025 (Crime No.48/2025, Upparpete P.S., Bengaluru) for offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 311 read with Section 3(5), BNS, 2023, alleging that accused Nos.1 and 2, in furtherance of common intention, assaulted the deceased with a knife at KSRTC bus stand, Majestic, causing death; the LXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge had rejected bail in Crl.Misc.No.6351/2025 (order dated 05.08.2025). Held: (i) objection of absence of specific overt act premature — common-intention case; absence of distinct overt act is for trial; (ii) charge sheet discloses an eye witness whose evidence is yet to be recorded; hearsay contention not examinable at this stage; (iii) completion of investigation confers no entitlement to bail in grave offences; (iv) offences punishable with death or life; gravity coupled with stage of proceedings weighs against the accused; relying on Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav, (2004) 7 SCC 528 (nature of accusation, severity of punishment, prima-facie satisfaction; bail not a matter of course in serious cases), the Criminal Petition was dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21404 CRL.P No. 12553 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12553 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VIJAY @ VIJI S/O SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT: NEAR ASHWATH NAGARA, PETROL BUNK, 5^TH CROSS, TELECOM LAYOUT, NAGAVARA, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶10

&PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. GOKUL H R.,ADVOCATE FOR;

¶12

SRI. KRISHNE GOWDA M., AND SRI. NATARAJ D., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY UPPARPETE PS. RPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

&RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT. SOUMYA R.,HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.48/2025 OF UPPARPETE P.S., NOW IN S.C.NO.849/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 103(1),3(5) AND 311 OF BNS AND PENDING BEFORE THE 67tH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:21404 CRL.P No. 12553 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This Criminal Petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023'), calling in question the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.No.68) in Crl.Misc.No.6351/2025, whereby the bail petition filed by the appellant came to be rejected.

¶26

Brief facts:

¶27

The case arises out of Crime No.48/2025 of Upparpete Police Station, Bangalore, now pending in S.C.No.849/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 311 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. The allegation is that accused Nos.1 and 2, in furtherance of the common intention, assaulted the

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:21404 CRL.P No. 12553 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

deceased at KSRTC bus stand, Majestic by using a knife, causing grievous injury which resulted in death.

¶32

Learned counsel for appellant/accused No.2 contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated and there is no specific overt act attributed to him. It is submitted that the allegations are to be omnibus in nature. Further, contended that the complainant is not an eye witness and case rests on hearsay evidence. It is submitted that the investigation is completed. The case has been committed to the Sessions Court and therefore, custodial interrogation is not required. The appellant is aged about 19 years and continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment. It is further contended that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding tampering with the witnesses is without any material basis. On this ground, the appellant seeks enlargement on

¶33

bail.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:21404 CRL.P No. 12553 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Per contra , learned High Court Government

¶38

Pleader appearing for respondent - State submits that the offence alleged is grave and heinous in nature, punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and therefore, requires Court to exercise greater caution while considering bail. It is contended that accused Nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have acted conjointly in furtherance of their common intention. The charge sheet discloses the presence of eye witnesses and the trial has not yet commenced and if released on bail, the appellant is likely to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. Hence, seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶39

From the material on record, this Court finds that allegation disclose commission of a serious offence resulting in a loss of human life. The contention of the appellant that no specific overt act is attributed to him cannot be accepted at this stage. The prosecution case indicates that accused Nos.1 and 2 have acted in furtherance of their common intention and the absence of

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:21404 CRL.P No. 12553 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

a distinct overt act is a matter to be tested during trial. The charge sheet indicates the presence of eye witness whose evidence is yet to be recorded. Hence, the contention of the appellant that complainant is not an eye witness and that the case rests on hearsay cannot be examined at this stage.

¶44

Mere the completion of an investigation does not entitle an accused to bail, especially in cases involving grave offences. The offences charged against accused No.2 is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The gravity of offence coupled with the stage of proceedings waves against the accused. The Apex Court in the case of MAHIPAL Vs. RAJESH KUMAR¹ has held that the Court must consider the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, and prima-facie satisfaction before granting bail. Similarly in the case of KALYAN CHANDRA SARKAR

¶45

Vs. RAJESH RANJAN ALIAS PAPPU YADAV² , it is held

¶46

that in serious cases, bail cannot be granted as a matter of

¶47

1 (2020) 2 SCC 118

¶48

2 (2004) 7 SCC 528

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:21404 CRL.P No. 12553 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

course. This Court finds that the appellant has failed to make out a ground for grant of bail. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition filed by accused No.2 is hereby

¶52

dismissed .

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶55

PHM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Vijay @ Viji v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay @ Viji v. 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. Suhas Ramachandra Gowda Vs M/S Classmate Properties Partnership Firm

Sri Iliyaz Pasha Vs Sri Hasain Pasha

Smt Gowramma Vs Smt Jayamma K

Venkatesha Vs the State of Karnataka

The Head Master, Vs the Commissoner for Transport

Sri Prathap S Vs State of Karnataka