N. Arun Kumar Alias Arun Alias Appi Vs State by

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 AND 201 OF IPC OF VIJAYNAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU PENDING BEFORE THIS HON’BLE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN FILE OF S.C.NO.852/2020.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:26248 CRL.P No. 152 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Accused in S.C.No.852/2020 pending before the

¶26

Court of LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.139/2020 registered by Vijayanagara Police Station, Bengaluru for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, is before this Court in this successive bail petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking regular bail.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶28

parties.

¶29

FIR in Crime No.139/2020 was registered by Vijayanagara Police Station, Bengaluru initially for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against petitioner herein, on the basis of first information dated 07.07.2020 received from Sri Doreswamy S P. During the course of investigation, the petitioner herein was arrested on 08.07.2020 and remanded to judicial custody. Investigation of the case was completed and charge sheet

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26248 CRL.P No. 152 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

has been filed against him for the aforesaid offence. The bail application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.4251/2024 was rejected on 23.05.2024. Therefore, he has approached this Court earlier in Crl.P.No.9107/2022, which was dismissed on 03.11.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed Crl.P.No.11710/2024 before this Court which was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

Perusal of the material available on record would go to show that the petitioner and deceased Hanumesh Gowda were friends and on the guise of providing a car at cheap rate, the said Hanumesh Gowda had taken amount of Rs.4,30,000/- from the petitioner and had not repaid the same nor he had provided the car to the petitioner as assured. It appears that for the said reason, the petitioner had ill-will against the deceased Hanumesh Gowda.

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26248 CRL.P No. 152 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

On 07.07.2020 at about 2.00 p.m., the

¶37

petitioner had gone to the shop of Hanumesh Gowda at RPC Layout, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru and demanded repayment of the money. It appears that the petitioner and Hanumesh Gowda thereafter quarreled and the allegation against the petitioner is that he had assaulted Hanumesh Gowda with a knife and committed his murder.

¶38

According to the prosecution, CW-2 is an eyewitness to the incident in question. However, in the charges sheet itself it is stated that after the petitioner had gone to the shop of Hanumesh Gowda, CW-1 and CW-2, who were present in the said shop had gone out of the shop.

¶39

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedents and he is in custody for the last nearly six years. The prosecution in the present case has cited 30 charge sheet witnesses.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶41

submits that as on this day, only CW-1 has been examined

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:26248 CRL.P No. 152 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

before the Trial Court and he has turned hostile to the

¶46

case of the prosecution.

¶47

The said submission is not seriously disputed by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

¶48

In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v.

¶49

State of Maharashtra and Another - 2024 SCC OnLine SC

¶50

1693 at paragraph No.19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

¶51

"19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime".

¶52

Under these circumstances, considering the

¶53

period of the petitioner incarceration and also the progress of the case before the Trial Court, I am of the opinion that,

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:26248 CRL.P No. 152 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail

¶57

needs to be answered affirmatively.

¶58

Without expressing any opinion on the merits

¶59

and demerits of the case, accordingly, following order:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.852/2020 LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.139/2020 registered by Vijayanagara Police Station, Bengaluru for offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶62

a) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶63

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:26248 CRL.P No. 152 of 2025

¶65

7 -

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶68

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶69

e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶70

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶71

HA

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

N. Arun Kumar Alias Arun Alias Appi v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Arun Kumar Alias Arun Alias Appi v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjunath G R Vs State of Karnataka

Chikka Muthu K @ Chikka Muttu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C M Poonacha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Gowtham Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Durgesha Vs State by Challakere Police

Mr. Saurabh Sangal Vs the State of Karnataka