Syed Ansar @ Ansar Vs State of Karnataka

SYED ANSAR @ ANSAR S/O LATE SYED CHAND PASHA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT BEHIND ATHEEK MASJID, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE, DAYANANDA NAGAR SLUM, SOMESHWARA NAGARA, JAYANAGARA 1^ST BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 011

¶12

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

UMAR KHAN @ UMAR S/O NASRULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT BEHIND ATHEEK MASJID, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE, DAYANANDA NAGAR SLUM, SOMESHWARA NAGARA, JAYANAGARA 1^ST BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 011

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. KARTHIK.G.BILLAVA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHANKUMAR D., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:995 CRL.P No. 17198 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU 560 001

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶23

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER NOs.1 AND 2/ACCUSED NOs.1 AND 2 ON REGULAR BAIL IN CR.NO.306/2024 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT SIDDAPURA P.S., BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 103(1),3(5) OF BNS, 2023, U/S 25(1B)(b) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN SC.NO.323/2025.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC.No.323/2025 pending

¶28

before the Court of LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, arising out of Crime No.306/2024 registered by Siddapura Police Station, Bangalore, for offences punishable under Section 103(1) r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 25(1B)(b) of Indian Arms Act, 1959, are before this Court in this successive bail petition filed under

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:995 CRL.P No. 17198 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Section 439 of Cr.P.C., r/w Section 483 of BNSS seeking

¶33

regular bail.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶35

FIR in Crime No.306/2024 was registered by

¶36

Siddapura Police Station, Bangalore, initially for the offence punishable under Section 109 r/w Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023, against the petitioners herein and another based on the first information dated 17.12.2024 received from Nagina Banu wife of Fairoz Khan who is the maternal aunt of deceased Salman Khan. During the course of investigation, petitioners herein who were arrested on 17.12.2024 were produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody on 18.12.2024. Injured Salman Khan who was admitted in the hospital died subsequently and therefore, Section 103 of BNS, 2023 was invoked in the present case against accused persons. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed in the present case against three persons. The bail

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:995 CRL.P No. 17198 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

application filed by the petitioners herein who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the charge sheet was rejected by the trial Court and therefore, they had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.4261/2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.06.2025 with liberty to the petitioners to renew their bail application after examination of the alleged eye witness C.W.1 is completed before the trial Court. Subsequently, the petitioners have filed a fresh bail application before the trial Court in SC.No.323/2025, which was rejected on 04.12.2025. Therefore, they are before this Court in this successive bail petition.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents and they are in custody for more than one year. All the material charge sheet witnesses have been already examined in the present case including C.W.1 and none of them have supported the case of the prosecution. He submits that accused No.3 has been granted regular bail

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:995 CRL.P No. 17198 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

by this Court in Crl.P.No.6084/2025. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶44

Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the petition, however, does not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the trial in the case is in progress and if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they are likely to flee away from justice.

¶45

The first information was submitted in the

¶46

present case by Smt.Nagina Banu, who is the maternal aunt of deceased Salman Khan. In the first information, it is alleged that on 17.12.2024 at about 04.00 a.m., she had seen Salman Khan shouting at somebody and when accused Nos.1 and 2 questioned him, he allegedly abused them in filthy language and therefore, accused Nos.1 and 2 all of a sudden assaulted him on his head with a wooden club. As a result of the assault, Salman Khan fell down and accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted him with a machete and accused No.3 assaulted him with his hands and also

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:995 CRL.P No. 17198 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

stabbed him with a knife. Injured Salman Khan who was shifted to the hospital succumbed to his injury while undergoing treatment in the hospital.

¶51

The post mortem report of the deceased would

¶52

go to show that death was as a result of head injury sustained by the deceased. C.W.1-Nagina Banu is the eye witness in the present case. She has been examined as P.W.1 before the trial Court. The prosecution has treated her as a hostile witness since she has not supported the case of the prosecution. Till date prosecution has examined 18 charge sheet witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.18. It is not in dispute that all the material charge sheet witnesses have been already examined as on this day.

¶53

The submission made by the learned counsel

¶54

for the petitioners that none of the material charge sheet witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution has not been seriously disputed by learned HCGP. Be that as it may, the fact remains that all the material charge sheet witnesses have been examined and therefore, there

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:995 CRL.P No. 17198 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

cannot be any apprehension that the petitioners may tamper with the material charge sheet witnesses. Undisputedly, the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents and they are in custody for more than one year. Accused No.3 has been granted regular bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.6084/2025 disposed of on 25.06.2025.

¶59

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, prayer made by the petitioners for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the following

¶60

ORDER

¶61

The petition is allowed .

¶62

The petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.306/2024 registered by Siddapura Police Station, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 25(1B)(b) of Indian Arms Act, 1959, subject to the following conditions:

¶63

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:995 CRL.P No. 17198 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

a) Petitioners 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;

¶66

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

¶67

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

¶68

d) Petitioners shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶69

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

¶70

SD/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶71

PB

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Syed Ansar @ Ansar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Ansar @ Ansar v. 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

Mr Mallappa T Vs Mr Ramesh J

Sri N R Jaishankar Vs N R Anand

Sri Suresh Hebbagilu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shakthivelu Vs Sri. G. Parthasarathi

Rangaiah Vs R. Shashidhara

Sri Chandrababu Naidu v Vs M/S Brands and Bargins Pvt. Ltd.