State of Karnataka v. Raghavendra @ Raghu @ Bakary Raghu

Karnataka HC24 Jul 2026CRL.P/14283/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC 2026; CRL.P 14283/2025; bail cancellation dismissed; Section 439(2) CrPC r/w Section 483(3) BNSS 2023; criminal antecedents not a standalone ground to deny bail; alleged organized crime syndicate membership; accused no.7 conspiracy allegation; Section 307 r/w Section 34 IPC attempt to murder; FIR Crime No.148/2024 Hanumanthnagar Police Station; parity — all co-accused with conspiracy allegation already on bail; acquitted in 14 of 16 prior cases; Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 11 SCC 648; Justice S Vishwajith Shetty.

What did the court decide?

The respondent's name did not appear in the FIR; he was implicated during the course of investigation and then arrested and remanded to judicial custody. ¶para 6 (¶36, ¶40)

State of Karnataka Vs Raghavendra @ Raghu @ Bakary Raghu — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶para 9 (¶48)

Issue for consideration

Whether the regular bail granted to the respondent (accused no.7) in Spl.C.C.No.2615/2024 should be set aside/cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C r/w Section 483(3) BNSS. +1 more

¶para 1 (¶24)

Court's answer

The respondent's name did not appear in the FIR; he was implicated during the course of investigation and then arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

¶para 6 (¶36, ¶40)

Ratio / Principle

Per the charge sheet, accused nos.1 to 4 are the assailants; they are arrested and all remain in custody.

¶para 6 (¶40)

Key takeaways

The allegation against accused nos.5 to 9 is conspiracy with accused nos.1 to 4 to commit the murder of the injured victim Rajesh.ratio¶para 6 (¶40)
It is undisputed that all other accused facing the conspiracy allegation have been enlarged on bail, and some of them are persons with criminal antecedents.ratio¶para 6 (¶40)
The respondent was in custody in the present case for more than six months, and it is undisputed that he has been acquitted in 14 of the 16 criminal cases registered against him.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail-cancellation petition under S.439(2) Cr.P.C r/w S.483(3) BNSS 2023 filed by the State (Hanumantha Nagar PS, CCB/OCW) against regular bail granted on 05.02.2025 by the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.2615/2024 to Raghavendra @ Raghu @ Bakary Raghu, arraigned as accused no.7 of nine in FIR Crime No.148/2024, Hanumanthnagar PS (S.307 r/w S.34 IPC). The court observed that the respondent was unnamed in the FIR and was implicated during investigation; the assailants (accused nos.1-4) are in custody; every co-accued facing only the conspiracy allegation (nos.5-9) has already been enlarged on bail, some with criminal antecedents; the respondent was in custody over six months, stands acquitted in 14 of 16 registered cases, and now resides at Hyderabad. Holding: mere criminal antecedents cannot by themselves deny regular bail where the accused is otherwise entitled, relying on Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2020) 11 SCC 648; no bail-condition violation was alleged and the Special Judge was justified in granting bail. Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:38686 CRL.P No. 14283 of 2025

¶4

CNR: KAHC010671492025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14283 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HANUMANTHA NAGAR POLICE STATION (CCB/OCW), BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

RAGHAVENDRA @ RAGHU @ BAKARY RAGHU S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.28/1 GANGESHA TEMPLE ROAD NAGAMMA COMPOUND KAVIKESHIRAJA ROAD HANUMANTHANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 050.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI K. RAMA SINGH, ADV.)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(3) BNSS) PRAYING TO 1.CANCEL THE ORDER GRANTING BAIL TO RESPONDENT / ACCUSED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.02.2025, PASSED BY THE PRL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.2615/2024.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:38686 CRL.P No. 14283 of 2025

¶21

CNR: KAHC010671492025

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C, R/w Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 05.02.2025, passed by the Court of Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Special C.C.No.2615 of 2024, wherein regular bail has been granted to the respondent herein.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

FIR in Crime No.148 of 2024 was registered by

¶27

Hanumanthnagar Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Section 307 R/w Section 34 of IPC against Sri Halappa and firends, based on the first information dated 10.06.2024 received from Sri V Kumar father of the injured victim Rajesh. In the said case, petitioner was arrested on 26.06.2024 and remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against nine persons and petitioner is arraigned as accused no.7 in the charge sheet. His regular bail application filed before the Trial Court in

¶28

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:38686 CRL.P No. 14283 of 2025

¶31

CNR: KAHC010671492025

¶32

Spl.C.C.No.2615 of 2024 was allowed on 05.02.2025 and assailing the said order, the State is before this Court.

¶33

Learned HCGP having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, respondent is a person with criminal antecedents. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in granting regular bail to him. The petitioner is a member of organized crime syndicate and is involved in committing organized crime. Learned Special Judge had failed to appreciate the same and has erred in granting regular bail to the respondent.

¶34

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submits that out of the 16 cases registered against the respondent in 14 cases he has been acquitted. In the present case, only allegation against him is of conspiracy. He was in custody for a period of more than 7 months in the present case. All other accused with similar allegations have been enlarged on bail. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶35

FIR in the present case was registered against Halappa and his friends. Petitioner's name is not found in the

¶36

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:38686 CRL.P No. 14283 of 2025

¶39

CNR: KAHC010671492025

¶40

FIR. During the course of investigation, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. As per the charge sheet allegation , accused nos.1 to 4 are the assailants in the present case. Accused nos.1 to 4 are arrested and they are all in custody. Allegation as against accused Nos.5 to 9 is about conspiracy with accused Nos.1 to 4 to commit the murder of injured victim Rajesh. It is not in dispute that all other accused in the present case, as against whom there is an allegation of conspiracy, have been enlarged on bail. Some of them are persons with criminal antecedents. Respondent was in custody in the present case for more than 6 months. It is not in dispute that out of the 16 criminal cases which were registered against him, in 14 cases he has been now acquitted.

¶41

Material on record would go to show that, respondent is now residing at Hyderabad with his family and the incident in question had taken place in Bangaluru. The learned Special Judge having appreciated the allegations found against the respondent in the present case has enlarged him on regular bail with appropriate conditions. Merely for the reason that an accused has certain criminal antecedents that itself

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:38686 CRL.P No. 14283 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

CNR: KAHC010671492025

¶45

cannot be a ground for denying regular bail to him, if it is otherwise found that he is entitled for the relief sought for. The law in this regard has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRABHAKAR TEWARI V. STATE OF

¶46

UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR - (2020) 11 SCC 648.

¶47

Under the circumstances I am of the opinion that the special Judge was justified in granting regular bail to the respondent. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent has violated bail conditions imposed on him. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition.

¶48

Accordingly, criminal petition is dismissed.

¶49

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶50

NMS

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

State of Karnataka v. Raghavendra @ Raghu @ Bakary Raghu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Raghavendra @ Raghu @ Bakary Raghu

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

T Mylarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Kudroli Mohammed Mansoor Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Prakash Vs the State by

Shalu @ Hajeera Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. v. L. Varadarajan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v Sathya Narayana Vs State by K R Puram Police Station