Allowed

Sri. Venkatesh a P v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2026CRL.P/16676/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought for accused No.1 in a murder case under Sections 201, 364, 302, 114/34 IPC. With all material witnesses including the informant examined and turned hostile, the court granted bail on bond with two sureties and conditions against tampering.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail: Rs.2,00,000 bond with two sureties; no commission of similar offences, no tampering with witnesses, court attendance as required.

Sri. Venkatesh a P Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3003 CRL.P No. 16676 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16676 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. VENKATESH A P S/O LATE DODDA PAKEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT. KANTHAMMA BUILDING, NELLURAHALLI, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 066.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NARAYANASWAMY K.N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KENCHARLAHALLI POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN (CRIME NO. 20/2024) SC.NO.19/2024 OF KENCHARLAHALLI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 201, 364, 302, 114, 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE: - 1860, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHIKKABALLAPURA SITTING AT CHINTAMANI.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:3003 CRL.P No. 16676 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner-accused No.1 in Crime No.20 of 2024 of Kencharlahalli Police Station, Chikkaballapura, pending in SC.No.19 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapura (sitting at Chintamani) is before this Court, seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., registered for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 364, 302 and 114 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Sri Babureddy.

¶25

Heard Sri Narayana Swamy K.N., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials on record.

¶26

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:3003 CRL.P No. 16676 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶31

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶32

R E A S O N S

¶33

On the basis of the first information, the FIR came to be registered by Kencharlahalli Police Station in Crime No.20/2024 against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 364, 302 and 114 read with Section 34 of IPC and the investigation was undertaken. After completing the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offences against accused Nos.1 and 2. It is stated that accused No.2 is already enlarged on bail. The petitioner being accused No.1 was apprehended on 05.01.2024, since then he is in judicial custody.

¶34

Initially, the petitioner had approached this Court seeking grant of bail, the said petition came to be withdrawn with liberty to file similar petition after examination of the material witnesses. Now it is the contention of the learned

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:3003 CRL.P No. 16676 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

counsel for the petitioner that all the materials witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to 18 and none of them have supported the case of the prosecution. Only official and formal witnesses are to be examined before the Trial Court. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail.

¶39

This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard is not disputed by the learned HCGP. She admitted that the prosecution witnesses who are examined before the Trial Court, have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶40

When the material witnesses including the informant have not supported the case of the prosecution, I do not find any reason to detain accused No.1 in custody, as such, detention of petitioner would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶41

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:3003 CRL.P No. 16676 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶47

(ii) The petitioner-accused No.1 in Crime No.20 of 2024 of Kencharlahalli Police Station, Chikkaballapura, pending in SC No.19/2024 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura (sitting at Chintamani), is ordered to be enlarged on bail, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶48

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶49

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶50

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶51

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as

¶52

stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:3003 CRL.P No. 16676 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶57

SD/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶58

MKM

¶59

CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri. Venkatesh a P v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Venkatesh a P v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt H N Latha Vs State of Karnataka

Indrani Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Dasegowda Vs the State by

Sri. Harish M T Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr M S Ravi Kumar Vs State by

Nethrananda @ Ananda Vs State of Karnataka