Dismissed¶47

Varadaraja @ Kajji v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2026CRL.P/14679/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Varadaraja @ Kajji v. State of Karnataka (Chitradurga Town P.S.), CRL.P No. 14679 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka (Mohammad Nawaz J., 09-01-2026): regular bail refused to accused No.2 charge-sheeted under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 506, 302 r/w 149 IPC (SC.No.78/2023, Crime No.24/2023); parity with already-enlarged co-accused rejected as petitioner alone alleged to have stabbed the deceased with a knife on the abdomen; gravity of offence and fag-end trial held decisive despite custody since 20.12.2023 and two earlier merit rejections plus one withdrawal; petition under S.439 Cr.P.C./S.483 BNSS dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; bail refused. Direction issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial at the earliest. ¶47

Varadaraja @ Kajji Vs the State of Karnataka by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; bail refused. Direction issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial at the earliest.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner/accused No.2, facing trial in SC.No.78/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 506, 302 r/w 149 IPC, is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. +2 more

¶24

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, and that the trial is at the fag end, this Court holds the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

Grant of bail to the co-accused does not enure to the benefit of the petitioner: unlike accused Nos.3 and 4, against whom there are no allegations of infliction of injuries with a dangerous weapon, it is this petitioner who stabbed the deceased with a knife on his abdomen.

¶41

Key takeaways

Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the incarceration undergone by the petitioner is also not a ground to enlarge him on bail.ratio¶41
From the material on record, it is this petitioner who stabbed the deceased with a knife on his abdomen.ratio¶38
This Court cannot make any observations on the evidence adduced before the trial Court, as such observations may prejudice the trial of the case.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail sought under S.439 Cr.P.C. (filed u/S 483 BNSS) by accused No.2 in SC.No.78/2023 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, arising from Crime No.24/2023 of Chitradurga Town P.S., for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 506 and 302 r/w 149 IPC — petitioner in judicial custody since 20.12.2023; co-accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 already enlarged on bail; earlier bail prayers rejected on merits in Crl.P.No.13398/2023 (18.01.2024) and Crl.P.No.12646/2024 (12.02.2025), and Crl.P.No.6368/2025 dismissed as not pressed (19.06.2025) — parity plea rejected: no allegations that accused Nos.3 and 4 inflicted injuries on the deceased with a dangerous weapon, whereas the material on record shows it is the petitioner who stabbed the deceased with a knife on his abdomen — nature and gravity of the offence and the fact that the trial is at the fag end outweigh prolonged incarceration — held, petitioner not entitled to bail; petition dismissed; trial Court directed to conclude the trial at the earliest.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:1209 CRL.P No. 14679 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14679 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VARADARAJA @ KAJJI S/O RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O NEAR CHURCH, KAMANABHAVI BADAVANE, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA-577 501

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAVINDRA B.DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION, CHITRADURGA- 577 501

¶15

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU- 560 001

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI.K., HCGP)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1209 CRL.P No. 14679 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL IN S.C NO.78/2023, ON THE FILE OF PRL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA (CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE O/P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 506, 302 R/W 149 IPC IN CR.NO.24/2023 OF CHITRADURGA TOWN P.S, CHITRADURGA).

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Petitioner / accused No.2 is seeking to enlarge him on bail in SC.No.78/2023, pending on the file of the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. The above Sessions case arises out of the charge sheet filed by

¶25

Chitradurga town police in their Station

¶26

Crime.No.24/2023.

¶27

Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 302, 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 506 and 149 IPC. Undisputedly, this Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for bail on two

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1209 CRL.P No. 14679 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

occasions, in Crl.P.No.13398/2023 dated 18.01.2024 and Crl.P.No.12646/2024 dated 12.02.2025. Further, Crl.P.No.6368/2025 was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 19.06.2025.

¶31

The instant petition is filed on the ground that the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody since 20.12.2023 and the other accused, namely accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are already enlarged on bail.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the bail petition of accused No.1 was allowed by this Court in Crl.P.No.12939/2024, vide order dated 05.03.2025, and he has been enlarged on bail. He contended that even the said petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the deceased with a radium cutter blade on his forehead. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner, who is languishing in judicial custody, may be enlarged on bail by imposing any conditions. He further contended that all the material witnesses are already examined and

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1209 CRL.P No. 14679 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

therefore, further detention of the petitioner is not warranted.

¶36

Learned HCGP has opposed the prayer seeking bail, contending that the trial is at the fag end and the petitioner is the main accused, who stabbed the deceased with a knife on his abdomen, which resulted in his death. He contended that subsequent to the grant of bail to accused No.1, the petitioner approached this Court in Crl.P.No.6368/2025 and the said petition was dismissed as not pressed. He therefore contended that there is no merit in the petition.

¶37

As already noted, the prayer of the petitioner

¶38

was rejected by this Court on merits on two occasions. In the above referred petitions preferred by the petitioner, this Court has taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence committed. As could be seen from the material on record, it is this petitioner who stabbed the deceased with a knife on his abdomen. While granting bail to accused

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1209 CRL.P No. 14679 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

No.1, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has taken into consideration the postmortem report of the deceased, which indicates that the death was due to stab injuries suffered by the deceased on his abdomen. The said injury was inflicted, as per prosecution and as per the statements of the witnesses, by the petitioner/accused No.2. Further, insofar as accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, there are no allegations that they have inflicted any injuries to the deceased with any dangerous weapon. Hence, grant of bail to the Co-accused will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. Further, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, incarceration undergone by the petitioner is also not a ground to enlarge him on bail.

¶42

Learned High Court Government Pleader contended that PW.2, an eyewitness to the incident, has supported the case of prosecution and he has clearly stated that it is this petitioner who stabbed the deceased with a knife on his abdomen. This Court cannot make any

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1209 CRL.P No. 14679 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

observations on the evidence adduced before the trial Court, which may prejudice the trial of the case. However, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, and also considering that the trial is at the fag end, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled for bail. Hence, the following:-

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) Petition is dismissed .

¶48

ii) The learned trial Court shall make all endeavour

¶49

to conclude the trial at the earliest.

¶50

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶51

LDC