Dismissed¶57

Shivaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2026CRL.P/15039/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail dismissed; Section 439 Cr.P.C. / Section 483 BNSS; accused No.1; Crime No.260/2022 (S.C.No.23/2023), Maddur Police Station; I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya; Sections 302 and 201 IPC (murder and destruction of evidence); circumstantial-evidence case, no eye-witness contention; judicial custody since 11.10.2022; CW1-CW12 examined; CW-22 (lodge owner) prime witness yet to be examined; gravity and heinous nature of offence; specific overt act; liberty reserved to reapply after CW-22 recorded; earlier bail dismissal dated 05.02.2024; High Court of Karnataka; Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur; decision dated 22.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

No bail granted; petition dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner/accused No.1 to seek bail afresh after the evidence of CW-22 is recorded. ¶57

Shivaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No bail granted; petition dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner/accused No.1 to seek bail afresh after the evidence of CW-22 is recorded.

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should be granted to petitioner/accused No.1, facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, in view of the gravity and heinous nature of the offence, the specific overt act attributed to him, and the fact that CW-22 (owner of the lodge, a prime witness) is yet to be examined.

¶22

Court's answer

The Court declined bail to petitioner/accused No.1 until the evidence of CW-22 is examined.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

Bail was refused as of now because the offences are of high gravity and heinous in nature, and there is a specific overt act against petitioner/accused No.1.

¶50

Key takeaways

CW22 is the owner of the lodge and a prime witness to speak about the incident, whose deposition was decisive for withholding bail at this stage.ratio¶48
Liberty is reserved to petitioner/accused No.1 to move this Court afresh for bail after the evidence of CW-22 is recorded.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.), in CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025 (filed under S.439 Cr.P.C., noted as filed under S.483 BNSS), dismissed the regular bail application of Shivaraju, accused No.1 in Crime No.260/2022 (S.C.No.23/2023) of Maddur Police Station, pending before the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC (alleged murder of Lokesh over a money motive, body thrown on a railway track). His earlier bail application had been dismissed on 05.02.2024. Though in judicial custody since 11.10.2022 and CW1 to CW12 already examined, the Court held that bail could not be granted till the evidence of CW-22 — the owner of the lodge and a prime witness to the incident — is recorded, given the high gravity and heinous nature of the offence and the specific overt act attributed to accused No.1. Liberty was reserved to renew the bail application after CW-22's evidence is recorded.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21804 CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15039 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHIVARAJU S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT HOSAPALYA, KUDUR HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT PIN - 561 101

¶9

PERMANENT R/AT NO.302 4^TH CROSS, MUDDAPPANAPALYA VISWANEEDAM POST BENGALURU - 560 091

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHARATH J.M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally AND: signed by B LAVANYA Location: STATE OF KARNATAKA HIGH BY MADDUR POLICE STATION COURT OF KARNATAKA REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU - 560 001 .

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. R. RANGASWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21804 CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO RELEASED HIM ON BAIL WHO IS ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRIME NO.260/2022 (S.C.NO.23/2023) ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT MADDUR POLICE STATION, NOW PENDING ON I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AT MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 201,302 OF IPC.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.1 for

¶22

grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the case of the petitioner/accused No.1 that the complaint was lodged by the brother of the deceased before Kudur Police Station registered in Crime No. 393/2022. The same was transferred to Maddur Police

¶23

Station for want of jurisdiction, and a complaint was registered in Crime No. 260/2022. Investigation was completed, and the charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner and three other accused persons.

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21804 CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

It is the case of the prosecution that

¶27

petitioner/accused No.1 had borrowed money from deceased Lokesh on 29.08.2022 at about 04.30 to 05.00 a.m. The deceased, in a drunken state, scolded the petitioner/accused No.1 to return back the amount. In this connection a motive was developed; petitioner/accused No.1 with the help of other accused (three in number), committed the murder of the deceased and threw the dead body on the railway track near Karadiguchamma Temple, Solur.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1

¶29

contends that he filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in S.C.No.23/2023 before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, for grant of regular bail, which came to be dismissed on 05.02.2024. Being unsuccessful in securing regular bail, he is before this Court seeking grant of bail.

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21804 CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

4. It is the vehement contention of learned

¶33

counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence and the prosecution has based its theory on circumstantial evidence, and there is no eye witness to the incident. It is further contended that a false and concocted story is put up against the petitioner implicating him in this heinous offence in which he is not involved. He further contends that there is a delay in the trial. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.10.2022. The prosecution has not even examined a single witness. During the course of arguments, he submits that CW1 to CW12 have been examined. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner/accused No.1. A charge sheet has been filed. There is no incriminating material as against the petitioner/accused No.1 and no materials are recovered as against the petitioner/accused No.1 to implicate him for the offence.

¶34

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21804 CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

It is further contended by the learned counsel

¶37

for the petitioner/accused No.1 that the petitioner is the sole earning member, having deep roots in the society and having a respectable name in the society. There is no chance of him absconding from the jurisdiction of the place. He would participate in the trial and adhere to the terms and conditions imposed by this Court if bail is granted. He also submits that there are no criminal antecedents other than the present case on hand. Hence, he may be granted bail and be released on bail for the offences stated herein.

¶38

Per contra, Learned HCGP appearing for the respondentState vehemently contends that the petitioner/accused No.1 had borrowed money from the deceased, and when the deceased asked for the return of the amount, the petitioner/accused No.1, along with three other accused persons, colluded with each other and conspired to take away the life of the deceased so that they may not have to pay the amount that was borrowed

¶39

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:21804 CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

from the deceased. There is a clear motive behind the act of murder, which was deliberate and conscious. Therefore, there is circumstantial evidence available. The petitioner is seen taking the deceased to the lodge and came out of the lodge where he was staying and caused the death of the deceased. Therefore, there is a specific incident of an overt act as against the petitioner/accused No.1 though the other accused may have been released on bail as contended.

¶42

Learned HCGP further contends that when there is a specific overt act as against the petitioner/accused No.1 and CW-22 is yet to be examined, who is the owner of the lodge, it may not be appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.1 as there is every chance of hampering and tampering with the witnesses, absconding from the jurisdiction of the Court, and not participating in the trial. Therefore, he seeks rejection of the bail. Learned HCGP contends that under such circumstances, if bail is granted, it may hamper the prosecution evidence, which is

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:21804 CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

already in the mid way. Hence, he seeks the petition to be rejected.

¶47

I have heard learned counsel for the

¶48

petitioner/accused No.1 and learned HCGP for the State. Apparently, it is seen that the offences are punishable, if proved, with life or death imprisonment. The offences are under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC. The petitioner/accused No.1 has been in judicial custody from 11.10.2022. Evidence of CW1 to CW12 are examined. CW22 is none other than the owner of the lodge, who is a prime witness to speak about the incident.

¶49

This Court is not inclined to accept the

¶50

contentions of the petitioner/accused No.1 to grant him bail till the evidence of CW-22 is examined. Under the circumstances, the petitioner/accused No.1 could be given liberty to move this Court after the evidence of CW-22 is recorded. Gravity of the offences is high. The offence is heinous in nature. Looking into the specific overt-act

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:21804 CRL.P No. 15039 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

against the petitioner/accused No.1, this Court is not inclined to grant bail as of now. For the aforesaid reasons,

¶55

I pass the following order.

¶56

ORDER

¶57