Allowed

Rakshith R v. State by Banasawadi Ps

Karnataka HC14 Jan 2026CRL.A/2585/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against rejection of bail for a murder charge. Key prosecution witnesses turned hostile and other accused had been granted bail; noting detention exceeding four and a half years, the High Court allowed the appeal and released the accused on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted: self-bond Rs.1,00,000 with one surety; conditions include no tampering with witnesses, appearance on all dates, and not leaving court jurisdiction.

Rakshith R Vs State by Banasawadi Ps — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2326 CRL.A No. 2585 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2585 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAKSHITH R S/O RAJIV AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, C/O MANJULAMMA, R/AT GOWDARA COLONY, HENNURU VILLAGE, KALYANA NAGARA POST, BANGALORE -560043.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. RAVIKUMARA B R.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE BY BANASAWADI PS REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING-560001.

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT C/O SMT.PUSHPAMMA, 7TH CROSS, CHALLAGHATTA, MURGESH PALYA ROAD, BANGALORE-560017.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1 SRI N.L.NARASIMHARAJU, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:2326 CRL.A No. 2585 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

11.08.2025 PASSED IN SPL.C.C.NO.1752/2021 BY THE HONBLE COURT OF LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE(CCH-71) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY GRANTING BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN CR.NO.337/2021 (NOW NUMBERED AS SPL.C.C.NO.1752/2021) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 120B, AND 149 OF IPC R/W 3(2)(v) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT OF BANASWADI POLICE STATION AND ETC.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 11.08.2025 passed in Special Case No.1752/2021 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short 'the trial Court').

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶25

Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the basis of complaint filed by one Smt.Lakshmamma, the Banaswadi Police have registered the case Crime No.337/2021 against the accused-Rakshit and others for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2326 CRL.A No. 2585 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

IPC. After investigation, the IO has submitted charge

¶29

sheet against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence under sections 302, 120(b) read with 149 of IPC and Section 3(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The present accused has filed application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail. Same came to be rejected by the trial Court on 11.08.2025. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of bail application, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, the appellant/accused No.1, who is young, has sound social standing in society and hail from poor households, has no criminal antecedents. Charge sheet also does not reflect any intimidating material against him. He is the sole breadwinner of his household and he is in no way involved in any unlawful or illegal activities. The appellant is not required for any investigation. The appellant is in judicial custody since 30.07.2021 and he has always behaved well-mannered during custody and also during the investigation process. The statements of eye witnesses

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:2326 CRL.A No. 2585 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

are already recorded and same cannot be changed with any kind of coercion or influence, which clearly show that even if the appellant is released on bail, he should not hamper the judicial proceedings.

¶35

Further, he would submit that, the Co-ordinate bench of this court has granted bail to all other accused. Bail is also granted to accused No.6 by the trial Court. On all these grounds, it is sought for allowing this appeal.

¶36

I have carefully examined the materials placed before this Court. The IO has submitted the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence under Sections 302, 120(b) read with 149, IPC and Section 3(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to accused No.5-Subash.N in Crl.A.No.1847/2022 dated 07.11.2023, accused No.3Avinash in Crl.A.No.1904/2022 dated 22.11.2023 and accused No.2-Nelson Raj @ G.J @ Jack in

¶37

Crl.A.No.1325/2025 dated 15.09.2025. It is submitted that, the trial Court has granted bail to accused No.6.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:2326 CRL.A No. 2585 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

As per charge sheet, CW1 is the mother of the

¶42

deceased and complainant. CW2 is the elder sister of deceased. CW3-Ajay Kumar is the friend of deceased. The copy of the deposition of CWs.1 and 2 are produced. The

¶43

CW1 and CW2, the mother and elder sister of the deceased have not supported to the case of the prosecution. CW1 has categorically denied the contents of Exhibit P1 and also the statement said to have been recorded by the IO as per Exhibit P4. CW2 has not supported to the case of the prosecution. She has categorically denied the statements said to have been recorded by the IO under Section 161 of Cr.P.C which are marked as Exs.P14 to 16. Both witnesses have denied the contents of panchanama. PW3-Harisha, PW4-Anil Kumar, PW5-Mahesh, PW6-Madhu have not supported to the case of the prosecution.

¶44

8. While granting bail to the accused No.2 in

¶45

Crl.A.No.1325/2025, the Co-ordinate bench of this Court has observed that, CWs.1 to 3 are the eye witnesses to

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:2326 CRL.A No. 2585 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the incident. CW1 and CW2 have been examined as PW1

¶50

and PW2. They did not support the case of the prosecution. With this observation, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the appeal and granted bail to

¶51

accused No.2.

¶52

The trial Court has observed in Para 14 of Spl.C.No.1752/2021, as under:

¶53

"This court having concurrent charge of the regular court has issued warrant and proclamation against the witnesses. However, the investigation officer and the prosecution have failed to secure the witness on the given date of hearing. It is true that the accused No.1 is in custody since from the date of his arrest and the trial is not completed as expected. The trial is in progress. Merely on the basis that some of the eye witnesses have turned hostile, it cannot be said that the prosecution has not made its case against accused No.1. There are circumstantial witnesses and other witnesses placed by the prosecution to prove its case. Accused No.1 is the prime suspect behind the murder of the deceased and strong motive has been attributed against him. The charge sheet materials clearly implicates accused No.1 and his participation in the crime. It is true that the

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:2326 CRL.A No. 2585 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

accused No.1 is behind the bars due to the delay caused by the prosecution in not securing the witnesses, but at the same time the rights of the victim cannot be ignore, particularly when an heinous offence is committed. The offence alleged is punishable up to life imprisonment or death. Hence it is not proper at this stage to exercise discretion in favour of the accused No.1. Considering the gravity of the offence and manner in which the offence is committed, the bail petition needs to be rejected. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Negative ."

¶58

The trial court has also observed that, CW3-the alleged eye witness, has recently died. The trial court has also observed that PW1 and PW2, who are the eye witnesses, have turned hostile and not supported to the case of the prosecution. The trial court has observed that the prosecution is not securing the witnesses. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence and granting of bail by the Co-ordinate bench of this court to other accused and keeping in mind the period of detention of the accused in judicial custody for more than four and a half years, I am of the opinion

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:2326 CRL.A No. 2585 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

that, it is just and proper to allow this appeal. Accordingly,

¶63

I proceed to pass the following:

¶64

O R D E R

¶65

(i) Appeal is allowed ;

¶66

(ii) The order dated 11.08.2025 passed in Special Case No.1752/2021 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the appellant is allowed;

¶67

(iii) The appellant/accused No.1 shall be released on bail on executing self-bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶68

(iv) The appellant/accused No.1 shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

¶69

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:2326 CRL.A No. 2585 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

(v) The appellant/accused No.1 shall appear

¶73

before the trial Court, without fail on all the

¶74

dates of hearing;

¶75

(vi) The appellant/accused No.1 shall not leave

¶76

the jurisdiction of the Court, till disposal of this case;

¶77

(vii) Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the trial Court for taking necessary action.

¶78

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶79

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Rakshith R v. State by Banasawadi Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakshith R v. State by Banasawadi Ps

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

Sri Basavarajappa S Vs Maheshwarappa

Mr. Jyothi G Vs Sri. Vidya Sagar G

Mrs. Jyothi G Vs Sri. Mohan Kotla

Smt. M. Ramamani Vs Samanta Beauty Parlor

Sri Parameshwara M L Vs Khagendra Constructions

Shivashankar B., Vs Smt Bhagyamma