Dismissed¶¶36

Sri Jaga @ Jagadish, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2026CRL.P/7444/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (S Vishwajith Shetty, J.), 11.06.2026 — CRL.P No. 7444 of 2026 — anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 refused and petition dismissed; petitioner proclaimed offender (proclamation issued 2013, absconding accused in charge sheet) in heinous offence under Sections 302, 143, 147, 201, 109 r/w 149 IPC; split-up case C.C.No.202/2009, Crime No.75/2008, Nelamangala Police Station; Sessions Court rejection in Crl. Misc. No.44/2026 (10.02.2026) upheld; relies on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 174.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was throughout absconding in the case and is shown as an absconding accused in the charge sheet; accordingly his case was split up before the committal court and is pending as C.C.No.202/2009. ¶¶29

Sri Jaga @ Jagadish, Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, accused no.6 in C.C.No.202/2009 (arising out of Crime No.75/2008, Nelamangala Police Station) for offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 201, 109 read with 149 IPC, should be enlarged on anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, notwithstanding his status as a proclaimed offender.

¶¶15

Court's answer

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

Despite coercive steps by the committal court, the petitioner successfully avoided the court process; proclamation orders were issued against him in 2013 and the petitioner is a proclaimed offender.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

No exceptional circumstances are found in the present case to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is a proclaimed offender in a heinous offence.ratio¶¶32
The petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail was rightly rejected by the jurisdictional Sessions Court; the petition lacks merit and is dismissed.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — S. 482 BNSS, 2023 (successor provision to S. 438 Cr.PC as indicated in cause title) — Petitioner, accused no.6 in C.C.No.202/2009 (split-up case arising from Crime No.75/2008, Nelamangala Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 201, 109 read with 149 IPC), was throughout absconding, shown as an absconding accused in the charge sheet, and proclamation orders were issued against him by the committal court in 2013; he is a proclaimed offender whose split-up case remains pending before the committal court while the other accused stand committed to trial. Relying on the observation in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 174, that in normal circumstances anticipatory bail applications by accused declared as proclaimed offenders should not be entertained, and finding no exceptional circumstances to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to a proclaimed offender in a heinous offence, the Court held that the jurisdictional Sessions Court rightly rejected the petitioner's application in Crl. Misc. No.44/2026 and dismissed the criminal petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28358 CRL.P No. 7444 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7444 OF 2026

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI JAGA @ JAGADISH S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS MAGADI TALUK R/AT AJJANAHALLI VILLAGE RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 561 201.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI ANJANEYA A.B., ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 162 REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP)

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO. 75/2008, REGISTERED IN C.C. NO. 202/2009 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 302, 201, 109 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NELAMANGALA.

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:28358 CRL.P No. 7444 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Accused no.6 in CC.No.202/2009 pending before the Court of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala, arising out Crime No.75/2008 registered Nelamangala Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 201, 109 read with 149 IPC, is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.

¶23

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶24

FIR in Crime No.75/2008 was registered by Nelamangala Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District, initiates for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 IPC. After compleing investigation, charge sheet has been filed in the said case against seven persons. Petitioner is arrayed as accused no.6 in the charge sheet. Apprehending arrest in the case, petitioner had filed Crl. Misc. No.44/2026 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 10.02.2026. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:28358 CRL.P No. 7444 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Material on record would go to show that the petitioner

¶29

was throughout absconding in the present case and in the charge sheet which was filed, he is shown as an absconding accused. The case as against the petitioner was, therefore, split-up before the committal court and the same is pending in CC.No.202/2009, while the case as against the other accused has been committed to the jurisdictional Sessions Court.

¶30

The records reveal that though coercive steps were taken by the committal court to secure the presence of the petitioner, he has successfully avoided the court process. The committal court has issued proclamation orders as against the petitioner in the year 2013 itself. Petitioner is a proclaimed offender and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA

¶31

PRADESH VS PRADEEP SHARMA - (2014)2 SCC 174 , has observed that in normal circumstances, anticipatory bail application filed by the accused who are declared as proclaimed offenders should not be entertained.

¶32

No exceptional circumstances are found in the present case to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner who is a proclaimed offender in a heinous offence.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:28358 CRL.P No. 7444 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail was rightly rejected by the jurisdictional Sessions Court. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶37

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶38

Sri Jaga @ Jagadish, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jaga @ Jagadish, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan. a Vs State by

Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Karnataka

Jagadeesh Chandra Raj Urs Vs State of Karnataka

Villuri Mohan Venkata Siva Sankar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Srinidhi v R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Srinidhi v R Vs the State of Karnataka