Dismissed¶¶48

Prashanth Alias Pacchi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2026CRL.P/13300/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail rejected; attempt to murder (S.307 IPC) case of 2010; split up case SC No.193/2025; arrest under NBW on 30.06.2025; proclamation issued against accused; accused claimed neuro-psychiatric illness; cross-examination delayed as police did not produce witnesses; speedy trial direction to Trial Court (outer limit one year; renewal of bail plea if trial not concluded in six months); Cubbon Park Police Station Crime No.197/2010; CCH-67 Bengaluru; S.439 Cr.PC / S.483 BNSS; High Court of Karnataka, March 2026.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; however, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial at the earliest (order recites an outer limit of one year), and liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move a similar bail application if the trial is not concluded within six months from the date of the order. ¶¶48

Prashanth Alias Pacchi Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner (Accused No.1) should be enlarged on regular bail in Crime No.197/2010 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 324, 307, 506(B) read with Section 149 IPC.

¶¶28

Court's answer

The regular bail petition of the petitioner (Accused No.1) in Crime No.197/2010 stands rejected.

¶¶48

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial at the earliest, not later than one year, securing speedy trial to the under trial prisoner.

¶¶50

Key takeaways

If the trial is not concluded within six months from the date of the order, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move a similar application before the Court for grant of bail.ratio¶¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice S Rachaiah, single judge) dismisses a regular bail petition under S.439 Cr.PC (filed u/s 483 BNSS) moved by Prashanth alias Pacchi, Accused No.1, in Crime No.197/2010 of Cubbon Park Police Station for offences under Sections 143, 341, 324, 307, 506(B) read with Section 149 IPC, 1860. The 2010 case alleges a midnight knife assault on complainant Mohamad Anif outside his hotel with attempted murder; a split up case (SC No.193/2025) is pending before the XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-67). The petitioner, arrested on 30.06.2025 under NBW after issuance of proclamation, relied on his neuro-psychiatric condition, his mother's ailment, and delay in cross-examination because the police have not produced witnesses whose examination-in-chief is complete. The State opposed bail citing risk of absconding. Bail was rejected; the Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial at the earliest, not later than one year, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to renew the bail plea if the trial is not concluded within six months.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:13992 CRL.P No. 13300 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13300 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PRASHANTH

¶9

ALIAS PACCHI

¶10

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

S/O LATE. NATARAJAN. R, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O NO.25-23-1442, MR LANE, JEPPU BAPPAL, NANDIGUDA, 1^ST CROSS, MANGALORE, PO KANKANADY, DIST. DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA-575002.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. SHREYAS NARAHARI, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.BINDU S.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13992 CRL.P No. 13300 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

BY CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. RANTGASWAMY R, HCGP)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.1) ON BAIL IN THE CR.NO.197/2010 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR UNDER SECTIONS 143, 341, 324, 307, 506(B), READ WITH SECTION 149 OF THE IPC, 1860 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE XLVI, ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU. (CCH-67).

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13992 CRL.P No. 13300 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The present petition is moved seeking for

¶28

regular bail in Crime No.197/2010 of respondent/Police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 324, 307, 506(B) read with Section 149 of IPC, 180.

¶29

The brief facts of the case :

¶30

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Mohamad Anif, s/o Bava lodged a complaint stating that in the midnight around 12.00, he was standing outside of his hotel. The petitioner and others threatened the complainant, and assaulted him with knife and attempted to commit murder. When the brother of the complainant and hotel employees tried to rescue the petitioner, the petitioner and other accused assaulted them and also caused bleeding injuries. A case came to be registered against the petitioner and other accused.

¶31

Based on the said complaint, the respondent/police registered a case, conducted

¶32

investigation and submitted a charge sheet.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:13992 CRL.P No. 13300 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The submission of the learned counsel for the

¶37

petitioner is that a split up case was registered against the petitioner in SC No.193/2025, and he was arrested on 30.06.2025 under NBW. The petitioner was suffering from mental and physical problem, he is a Neuro - psychiatric patient, he was taking regular treatment and his mental condition is not stable. Moreover, his mother is having old age ailment, and she has to undergo surgery. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would undertake to appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail. It is further stated that due to unavoidable circumstances and communication gap between the petitioner and his Advocate, he was not informed about the hearing date. The absence before the Trial Court was bonafide and not an intentional. Hence, he prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions, and he would abide by the conditions in the event of his release on bail.

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13992 CRL.P No. 13300 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State vehemently submits that though the matter is of the year 2010, the petitioner remained absent and split up case has been registered against him. He has been secured through warrant, even proclamation had also been issued against him. Such being the fact, in case, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there may be chances of absconding again, and moreover, his mental status is not in good position. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submission, he prayed to reject the petition.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the charge sheet averments made available along with the petition, no doubt, the incident had occurred in the year 2010. It is alleged that the petitioner and others had assaulted the complainant and caused severe bleeding injuries. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the examination-inchief of all the witnesses has been completed and they are

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13992 CRL.P No. 13300 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

required to be present for the purpose of crossexamination. However, the police have not produced them for conducting cross-examination, as a result of which, there is a delay in concluding the trial. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. With regard to the said submission, it is directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial at the earliest to secure the speedy trial. It is needless to state that justice to be given to the needy. The Constitution of India provided certain privileges to the under trial prisoners. Securing the speedy trial is also one of the privileges which is considered as most significant.

¶45