Allowed¶48

Sri Syed Irfan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2026CRL.P/4653/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail; CRL.P No.4653 of 2026; S.439 CrPC / S.483 BNSS; BNS 2023 Ss.109(1), 126(2), 351(2), 352; knife attack on cousin-complainant; Crime No.279/2025 Vidyaranyapura P.S.; SC.No.200/2026; criminal antecedents; Ss.397/399/402 IPC; habitual offender objection; witness tampering apprehension; bail granted with conditions; personal bond Rs.1,00,000/-; monthly police attendance; cancellation liberty; Justice S Rachaiah; High Court of Karnataka; decided 22.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail in Crime No.279/2025 of respondent-police on a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions including non-tampering with witnesses, appearance on all hearing dates, abstention from fresh offences, and monthly attendance before the jurisdictional Police. ¶48

Sri Syed Irfan Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/accused should be released on regular bail in Crime No.279/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2), 126(2) and 109(1) of BNS, 2023. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Considering the gravity and nature of the offences levelled against the petitioner, the Court held it appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions to address the prosecution's apprehension.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.279/2025 on executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to conditions: not to threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses nor hamper Court proceedings; to appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates; not to indulge in any criminal cases till disposal of the case; and to mark attendance once a month on Sunday between 10.00 am and 02.00 pm before the jurisdictional Police.

¶49-51

Key takeaways

On violation of any bail condition, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.ratio¶65-66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (S Rachaiah, J.) allowed CRL.P No.4653 of 2026 filed u/s 439 Cr.P.C / 483 BNSS and granted regular bail to Sri Syed Irfan, accused in Crime No.279/2025 of Vidyaranyapura P.S., charged under Ss.109(1), 126(2), 351(2) and 352 of BNS, 2023, the case having arisen from an alleged knife attack on the complainant, his cousin brother, who sustained injuries and underwent surgery. Although the State opposed bail citing the petitioner's criminal antecedents (two pending cases under Ss.397, 399 and 402 IPC, making this his third case) and the risk of his threatening prosecution witnesses, the Court, noting that the injured complainant had been discharged from hospital, considered the gravity and nature of the offences and found it appropriate to grant bail with suitable conditions: personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum; prohibition on threatening/tampering with prosecution witnesses; compulsory appearance before the Trial Court (SC.No.200/2026, LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-70, Bengaluru) on all hearing dates; abstention from fresh criminal cases; and once-a-month Sunday reporting to the jurisdictional Police, with liberty reserved to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail on violation of any condition.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:22104 CRL.P No. 4653 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4653 OF 2026 (439(Cr.PC) /

¶5

483(BNSS))

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SYED IRFAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O. LATE SYED RAFIQ R/O. NO.65, 3^RD CROSS, NEAR FAROOQ CLINIC CHIKKABETTAHALLI, VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU - 560 097.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

(BY SRI. H L JAYARAMU., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYARANYAPURA P.S. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP)

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:22104 CRL.P No. 4653 of 2026

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ORDER FOR RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SC.NO.200/2026, PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-70) BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 109(1), 126(2), 351(2), 352 OF BNS, 2023.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner/accused is before this Court seeking grant of regular bail in Crime No.279/2025 of respondent-police for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2), 126(2) and 109(1) of BNS, 2023.

¶22

Brief facts of the case:

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that, on 26.08.2025 at

¶24

about 03.15 a.m., the SHO of Vidyaranyapura Police has registered a case on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Syed Mujaheed.

¶25

It is alleged that on 24.08.2025, an engagement ceremony was held in the family of the petitioner. The

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:22104 CRL.P No. 4653 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

petitioner had abused his father about the arrangements of the function. The complainant had advised the petitioner and pacified the matter.

¶30

It is further stated that the petitioner being annoyed by the act of the complainant, The petitioner, intercepted the complainant when the complainant was proceeding on his motorcycle on a public road, took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed him on the upper part of his back with an intention to commit his murder. As a result of which, the complainant had sustained severe bleeding injuries. Immediately, the complainant was shifted to Carewell hospital and thereafter, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru where he underwent surgery. Based on the statement, the respondent-police have registered a case, conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

¶31

Heard Sri.H.L.Jayaramu, learned counsel for the

¶32

petitioner and Smt.Anitha Girish N, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22104 CRL.P No. 4653 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner is none other than cousin brother of the complainant. He had no intention to commit the murder of the complainant. However, in order to threaten the complainant, he took out a knife and started quarrelling with the complainant. In fact, the complainant had also assaulted the petitioner and caused severe injuries to the petitioner. The manner in which the petitioner assaulted the injured would indicate that he had no intention to commit murder of the complainant. Hence, as per the provisions of Section 109 of BNS, 2023 are not applicable to the case on hand.

¶36

It is further submitted that the petitioner is the only earning member of the family and he is in judicial custody from the date of his arrest. The petitioner is ready to abide the conditions to be imposed in the event of his released on bail. The mere pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner is not sufficient ground to deny the bail. Therefore, the Court may show leniency to the petitioner as he is the only earning member and he has to take care of his family. Making such

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22104 CRL.P No. 4653 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶40

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State vehemently submitted that there are criminal antecedents against the petitioner and he has been involved in two more cases and this is his third case. The accused is a habitual offender, if he is released on bail, there might be chances of him threatening the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submissions, learned HCGP for respondent – State prays to reject the petition.

¶41

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears that the complainant is the cousin brother of the petitioner and there was quarrel between the petitioner and the father of the complainant. The complainant interfered with the said issue and pacified the quarrel, by advising the petitioner. However, the petitioner was unhappy and he wanted to take revenge against the complainant. On the following day, he restrained the complainant and it is evident that he has

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:22104 CRL.P No. 4653 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

assaulted him on a vital part of his body and caused injuries. However, the complainant/injured has been discharged from the hospital after obtaining treatment.

¶45

Be that as it may, the learned HCGP brought to the notice that there are two more cases pending against the petitioner. On going through the said paragraph of the order of the trial Court, it appears that two cases have been registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 397, 399 and 402 of IPC.

¶46

Having considered the gravity and nature of the offences levelled against the petitioner, it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable condition that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶49

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be

¶50

enlarged on bail in Crime No.279/2025 of

¶51

respondent-police for the aforesaid offences on executing a personal bond in a sum of

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:22104 CRL.P No. 4653 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one

¶56

surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the

¶57

Trial Court.

¶58

(iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or

¶59

tamper with the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶60

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the

¶61

Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶62

(v) The petitioner shall not indulge in any

¶63

criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶64

(vi) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month on Sunday between 10.00 am to 02.00 pm before the jurisdictional Police till disposal of the case.

¶65

In case, the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions

¶66

as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶67

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶68

JS/-

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Sri Syed Irfan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Syed Irfan 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

Sri Gangaraja N G Vs the State of Karnataka

Thammegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Anitha B.N, Vs State of Karnataka

Ajaykumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Govindaraju @ Govindha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Kumar.M., Vs State of Karnataka by