Arun Yadav Vs State of Karnataka by

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C (FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.33428/2025 (CR.NO.94/2025) OF RESPONDENT BANDEPALYA POLICE PENDING BEFORE IX A.C.J.M AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 61(2), 103(1), 238,240 R/W 3(5) OF BNS AND ETC.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:8410 CRL.P No. 17224 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed by accused No. 2 under

¶24

Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No. 94/2025 of Bandepalya Police Station registered for offence under Sections 61(2), 103(1), 238, 240 read with Section 3(5) of BNS.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

¶26

learned Additional SPP for respondent - State.

¶27

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend

¶28

that this Court has granted bail to accused No. 3 by order dated 02.02.2026 passed in Crl.P. No. 14639/2025. Petitioner is placed similar to that of accused No. 3 who has been granted bail and therefore petitioner is entitled

¶29

for grant of bail on the ground of parity. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 24.06.2025. As chargesheet is filed, petitioner is not required for further custodial

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8410 CRL.P No. 17224 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶33

Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that

¶34

C.W.4 is a witness who has seen accused Nos.1 to 3 and deceased together near the house of accused No.3. C.W.2 has stated regarding extrajudicial confession made by accused No.2 in his statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. C.W.4 has stated regarding extrajudicial confession made by accused No.3. One of the Doctors who conducted PM examination of the dead body of the deceased has opined that death is due to injury sustained. The chargesheet material show prima facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the chargesheet and other materials placed on record.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:8410 CRL.P No. 17224 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

This Court while granting bail to accused No. 3 by order dated 02.02.2026 passed in Crl.P. No.

¶40

14639/2025 has observed as under:

¶41

6. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased had disclosed the illicit relationship of accused No.1 with the wife of his brother to accused Nos.2 and 3. Accused No.1 enraged by that, in conspiracy with accused No.2 and 3 assaulted the deceased with hands on his face and dashed his head to the wall and committed his murder in the house of accused No.3.

¶42

7. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Even though CW.2 to CW.4 are cited as eyewitnesses to the incident, but on perusal of their statements, they are not eyewitnesses to the incident. CW.2 has stated regarding extrajudicial confession made by accused No.2 and CW.4 has stated regarding extrajudicial confession made by accused No.3. CW.3 is a land lady of the house of accused No.3 and she has stated the movements of friends of accused No.3 on the day of incident. CW.4 has also stated regarding he last seen the

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8410 CRL.P No. 17224 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

deceased and accused Nos.1 to 3 together on the day of incident.

¶46

8. Considering the above aspects, the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, each of the circumstances has to be proved at trial. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 24.06.2025 and as the charge sheet filed, he is not required for custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Considering the above aspect, the petitioner has made out case for grant of bail with conditions. In the result, the following:

¶47

7. Considering the above aspects, petitioner -

¶48

accused No. 2 is placed similar to that of accused No. 3 who has been granted bail. Therefore petitioner is entitled to grant of bail on the ground of parity. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 24.06.2025 and as chargesheet is

¶49

filed, he is not required for custodial interrogation.

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:8410 CRL.P No. 17224 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Considering the above aspects, petitioner has

¶54

made out case for grant of bail with conditions.

¶55

In the result, the following;

¶56

O R D E R

¶57

Petition is allowed. Petitioner is granted bail in Crime

¶58

No.94/2025 of Bandepalya Police Station, subject to following conditions:

¶59

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶60

(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶61

(iii) Petitioner shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and cooperate for speedy disposal of the case.

¶62

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶63

LRS

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79

Arun Yadav v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Yadav v. State of Karnataka 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

Sri. Srikantha G K Vs the State of Karnataka

Abdul Sabeer Vs State by Mudigere Police

Sri. Syed Irfan @ Irfan Vs State of Karnataka

Hanumantha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Savikumar Vs State of Karnataka

Jayashankar Alias Jocky Vs State of Karnataka