Venkatesha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2026CRL.P/15804/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail deferred pending witness examination — Karnataka High Court (K.S. Hemalekha, J.), 21 April 2026, disposed of a s.439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS bail petition in S.C. No.160/2025 (Crime No.158/2024, Kamakshipalya P.S.; offences IPC ss.498A and 302), directing completion of CW.4's examination within three weeks from next hearing and reserving liberty for a fresh bail petition; earlier bail rejected in Crl. Misc. No.8176/2025; earlier liberty conditioned on CW.4 in Crl. P. No.8821/2024.

What did the court decide?

Bail not considered on merits; petition disposed of with a direction to the State to complete CW.4's examination on priority within three weeks from the next date of hearing, and liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh bail petition after completion of CW.4's examination. ¶¶33

Venkatesha Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in judicial custody as accused in Crime No.158/2024 pending trial in S.C. No.160/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC, should be enlarged on bail. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh petition for bail after completion of the examination of CW.4; the criminal petition stands disposed of.

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

Since completion of CW.4's examination was the condition attached to the earlier liberty to renew the bail prayer and it admittedly stood incomplete, the Court declined to consider the bail application on merits at this stage and instead directed attention to expeditious progress of the trial, particularly completion of CW.4's evidence.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

The respondent-State was directed to ensure that examination of CW.4 is taken up on priority and completed within three weeks from the next date of hearing, the direction to be communicated to the public prosecutor concerned.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 of BNSS) by an accused in judicial custody seeking enlargement on bail in S.C. No.160/2025 (arising out of Crime No.158/2024 of Kamakshipalya P.S.) for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC. His earlier bail application in Crl. Misc. No.8176/2025 had been rejected by the Sessions Court, and this Court in Crl. P. No.8821/2024 had permitted renewal of the bail prayer after completion of examination of CW.4. As CW.4's examination admittedly remained unconcluded, the High Court disposed of the petition without deciding bail on merits, directing the respondent-State to complete CW.4's examination on priority within three weeks from the next date of hearing and reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail petition thereafter. (High Court of Karnataka, 21-04-2026, K.S. Hemalekha, J.)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:21627 CRL.P No. 15804 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15804 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O THIMMAIAH, R/AT NO.76, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, RANGANATHAPURA, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA – 560079 PERMANENT ADDRESS: HOMBEGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE, AKKURU POST, KUTAKAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA-562159. (PETITIONER IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAKSHITH R., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. LIKITHA M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAMAKSHI PALYA P.S. REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SOUMYA R., HCGP)

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21627 CRL.P No. 15804 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 439 CR.P.C. (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.158/2024 OF KAMAKSHIPALYA P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE (CCH-72) IN SC.NO.160/2025, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 498(A) OF IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 of BNSS) seeking to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.158/2024 of Kamakshipalya Police Station, registered in S.C. No.160/2025 on the file of the LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH72) for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC.

¶21

The petitioner is the accused in the aforesaid crime. His earlier application for bail in Crl. Misc. No.8176/2025 came to be rejected by the Sessions Court. It is also not in dispute that, this Court in Crl. P. No.8821/2024 has granted liberty to approach the Court afresh after completion of examination of CW.4.

¶22

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21627 CRL.P No. 15804 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that examination of CW.4, which was directed to be completed, has not been concluded. The trial is likely to take considerable time. There are discrepancies in the post mortem report. The child born from the wedlock is presently under the care of the petitioner’s parents. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks enlargement on bail.

¶25

Leaned HCGP submits that the examination of

¶26

CW.4 would be completed on priority basis.

¶27

The Trial Court rejected the bail. Earlier, liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after competition of examination of CW.4. Admittedly, such examination has not been completed. In the circumstances, instead of considering the bail on merits at this stage, it would be proper to ensure expeditious progress of trial, particularly completion of evidence of CW.4, which formed the basis for the liberty granted earlier.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:21627 CRL.P No. 15804 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Accordingly, the respondent-State is directed to

¶32

ensure that the examination of CW.4 is taken up on priority and completed within three (03) weeks from the next date of hearing. The said direction shall be communicated to the public prosecutor concerned. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh petition for bail after completion of the examination of CW.4.

¶33

With the above observations, the criminal petition stands disposed of.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶36

MBM

¶37

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Venkatesha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Suhas Ramachandra Gowda Vs M/S Classmate Properties Partnership Firm

Sri Iliyaz Pasha Vs Sri Hasain Pasha

Smt Gowramma Vs Smt Jayamma K

The Head Master, Vs the Commissoner for Transport

Sri Prathap S Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Byramma Vs the Commissioner