Dismissed

Channakeshav B S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Apr 2026CRL.P/17583/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of a bail petition under Section 483 BNSS filed against Accused No. 4 in a murder case. The court denied bail citing prima facie guilt evidenced by CCTV footage of accused purchasing drugs and presence at relevant locations, despite the Post Mortem Report not detecting drugs.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition dismissed; petitioner to remain in custody pending trial.

Channakeshav B S Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:24096 CRL.P No. 17583 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17583 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHANNAKESHAV B.S. S/O HEMANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O BEVOORU VILLAGE KOTTURU TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT - 583 134.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. SARVAMANGALA CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY N.R. PURA PS CHIKKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 113 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION THEREBY GRANTING THE REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO4 IN SPL.C.NO.113/2025(CR.NO.43/2025 N.R.PURA POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 61(2)(a), 103(1), 3(5) OF BNS 2023.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:24096 CRL.P No. 17583 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed seeking bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Petitioner is accused No. 4 in Crime No. 43/2025 which is registered

¶23

before N R Pura Circle Police Station and the complaint is filed on 25.05.2025 alleging death of one Sudharshan. The accused No. 1 is wife of deceased Sudharshan.

¶24

The remaining three accused including the petitioner are not the relatives of the deceased or accused No. 1.

¶25

The prosecution contends that accused No. 1 was having an affair with her former employer and the husband being aware of the affair was objecting to the conduct of the accused No. 1 and being fed up with that the accused No. 1 had conspired to eliminate her husband Sudharshan.

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:24096 CRL.P No. 17583 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

The case was initially registered pursuant to the

¶29

information received by the PSI of the N R Pura Police Station and it was registered as unnatural death case.

¶30

The prosecution contends that after

¶31

investigation, the accused No.1 revealed the conspiracy to eliminate Sudharshan at the instance of accused No. 1, his wife. 3. To substantiate the contention that the accused No. 1 had instigated accused Nos. 2 to 4 to eliminate Sudharshan, the prosecution has recovered the CCTV footage from a medical shop and from a wine shop, where it is alleged that accused No. 3 and 4 have purchased antidepression pill Quetiapine. The said drug was mixed with alcohol and Sudharshan was made to consume that alcohol at the instance of accused Nos. 2 to 4 and when he fell asleep, he was killed by accused Nos. 3 and 4.

¶32

The accused having been arrested, the bail petition in S C No.113/2025 filed by the petitioner before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:24096 CRL.P No. 17583 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Chikkamagaluru, is rejected in terms of order dated 11.12.2025. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶37

Learned counsel for appearing for the petitioner

¶38

would submit that accused No. 4 is innocent and he is not involved in the commission of alleged offences and a false case is filed against accused No. 4. The accused No. 4 is willing to abide by any of the terms and conditions for his release on bail.

¶39

It is also submitted that the materials collected by the prosecution are not sufficient to make out a prima facie case against accused No. 4. The prosecution theory is defective and the contention that the Quetiapine drug is mixed with the alcohol and thereafter the deceased consumed the same and died cannot be accepted, given the fact that the Post Mortem Report does not indicate presence of Quetiapine in the blood. Had the deceased really consumed alcohol mixed with Quetiapine, the blood sample would have reflected the presence of Quetiapine in the blood. Thus, it is urged that assuming that accused

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:24096 CRL.P No. 17583 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

No. 4, was in the medical shop as well as the wine shop, it is not a ground to deny the bail and there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident and thus, the learned counsel urged that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

¶43

Learned HCGP appearing for the respondentState would submit that the prosecution has collected the credible materials which would point the guilt of the petitioner as well as the remaining accused. It is submitted that the CCTV footage would disclose the fact that the petitioner/accused No.4 was present along with the remaining accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the medical shop as well as in the wine shop. The doctor's report would reveal that the deceased was suffocated. Thus, the contention that the deceased was killed making him drink alcohol mixed with sleeping pills is very logical and these facts would indicate the involvement of the present petitioner. In addition, it is also urged that the owner of the medical shop has also given a statement confirming purchase of Quetiapine by accused Nos. 2 to 4.

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:24096 CRL.P No. 17583 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Learned HCGP would submit that the Post

¶47

Mortem was conducted on 25.05.2025 morning. Whereas the death has taken place in the evening on 23.05.2025. That being the position, even it is assumed that the traces of the sleeping pills were not found in the blood, that cannot be a ground to grant the bail.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by way of reply would urge in case the deceased had died due to suffocation immediately after consumption of alcohol, then the drug would have been found in the blood sample. And in such a situation the drug would not have disappeared from the body of the deceased and the very fact that it is not found in the postmortem report would turn the prosecution theory upside down.

¶49

The Court has considered the contentions raised

¶50

at the Bar and perused the records.

¶51

The prima facie indication which would point out to the guilt of the petitioner is the CCTV footage recovered

¶52

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:24096 CRL.P No. 17583 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

from the medical shop, where the petitioner is found along with the remaining accused, namely, accused Nos. 2 and 3. Though learned HCGP would submit that the CCTV footage is recovered from the wine shop, the charge sheet material would not indicate any such recovery. However, the Court is of the view that the prosecution has made out a prima facie case to deny the bail.

¶55

It is to be noticed that the prosecution has recovered the call details. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the call details pertaining to the accused do not point out to the involvement of the petitioner as there is no call made to the petitioner by the accused No.1 to 3, the Court at this juncture is of the view that the presence of the petitioner in the medical shop along with other accused coupled with the statement of the owner of the medical shop is sufficient to take a view that the bail has to be denied at this stage.

¶56

Whether the accused purchased the sleeping pills and whether same was used along with the alcohol

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:24096 CRL.P No. 17583 of 2025

¶58

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

and deceased was made to drink the same are the matters

¶61

to be considered at the time of trial.

¶62

Considering the gravity of the offence and other

¶63

circumstances noticed from the charge sheet, the Court is

¶64

not inclined to grant the bail at this stage.

¶65

Hence, the petition is dismissed .

¶66

The observations made in this order are only

¶67

confined to the merits of the claim petition and should not

¶68

be construed as reflection on the merit of the case pending

¶69

before the Sessions Court.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶72

Bsv/CHS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Channakeshav B S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Channakeshav B S v. 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

Ganesha Engineers Fabricators Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

Mr Amit Singhal Vs Lumen India Private Ltd.

Krisan Lal Vs the Central Silk Board

Santhosh Mahto Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs P.Mohan Kumar

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri. Ramesh H .K