Allowed

Nagaraju N B v. State by Sathnoor Police

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2026CRL.A/2602/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Successive bail appeal by accused No.2 in a murder case where his alleged role was destruction of evidence under Section 201 IPC. On the ground of parity with co-accused Nos.3 and 4 already granted bail and slow trial progress, the High Court allowed the appeal and enlarged him on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant enlarged on bail on bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions; violation entitles prosecution to seek cancellation.

Nagaraju N B Vs State by Sathnoor Police — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21048 CRL.A No. 2602 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2602 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

NAGARAJU N.B, S/O. BERALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. NERALE VILLAGE, DODDA KAVALANDE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 301.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJU C.N, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE BY SATHNOOR POLICE RAMANAGARA, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶16

KRISHNA NAYAK

¶17

S/O. LATE TAMMAIAH NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT BEHIND OLD NANJANGUD TOWN POLICE STATION, NANJANGUD TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT - 577 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:21048 CRL.A No. 2602 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAMANAGARA IN CRL.MISC.737/2025 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.22/2022 OF SATNORE POLICE, RAMANAGARA (SPL.C.NO.73/2022) AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 302, 201, 202, R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC 3(2)(V) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT 2015).

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

Heard Sri.Raju C. N., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State.

¶27

Accused No.2 in SC No.73/2022 is the appellant with a successive bail request.

¶28

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal as per column No.17 of the charge sheet which is now pending for trial in Spl. Case No.73/2022 are as under:

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:21048 CRL.A No. 2602 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Deceased and accused persons were carrying out granite

¶33

and tiles work in the house of C.W.2 – Shriram. As such, accused No.1 – Shivaraju N. B. said to have assaulted deceased Somanayaka with the hand and thereafter, he pushed him down the stairs and thereafter, with hollow block, assaulted the deceased on his head and he was done to death. On hearing the hue and cry, present petitioner and accused No.2 and 3 came to be spot and at the instructions of accused No.1, dead body was shifted to an unknown place and to destroy the evidence of crime, petrol has been poured on the dead body and lit fire. Role assigned to the present petitioner is thus destruction of evidence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. Accused Nos.3 and 4 were granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

¶35

role assigned to the present petitioner is same role that of accused Nos.3 and 4 who have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court after hearing the prosecution and therefore, on the ground of parity alone, the present appellant is also entitled for grant of bail.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:21048 CRL.A No. 2602 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State opposes the appeal grounds.

¶40

Having heard the arguments of both sides and taking note of the fact that trial has not progressed for one reason or the other and on the ground of parity, this Court is of the considered opinion that the bail request of the appellant needs to be allowed.

¶41

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter which would hamper the rights of the parties during the trial one way or the other, following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. Appeal is allowed .

¶44

ii. Present appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail on taking a bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶45

iii. Appellant shall not commit similar offence.

¶46

iv. Appellant shall not threaten or hamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21048 CRL.A No. 2602 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

v. Appellant shall appear before the Court regularly.

¶50

vi. Appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of Mysuru District without prior permission.

¶51

Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the

¶52

prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶53

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶54

KAV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22

Nagaraju N B v. State by Sathnoor Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraju N B v. State by Sathnoor Police

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. C Usha Vs Sri Anil Kumar M

Sri.Rasheed K S Vs Sri.a.Prabhakar Reddy

Sri Kodandaramashetty C G Vs Sri Dharmesh

C. Nagaraju Vs Shivananda. a

Murali R K Vs Sri Chikkavenkatagiri P

Sri Mohammed Mohisin Vs Sri Abdul Faaz Ulla