Dismissed¶57

Vijay Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2026CRL.P/8754/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: bail rejected; Section 439 Cr.P.C.; Section 483 BNSS; Karnataka High Court; murder (S.302 IPC); attempt to murder (S.307 IPC); robbery (S.397 IPC); house-trespass (S.448 IPC); common intention (S.34 IPC); heinous offences punishable with death or life; flight risk; threat to witnesses; speedy trial; Article 21 Constitution of India; judicial custody since 13.12.2019; incident 10.12.2019; Crime No.224/2019 Madhugiri Police Station; S.C.No.5017/2020 IV Additional District and Sessions Judge Madhugiri; co-accused on bail and absconding; injured witness CW-2 died; CRL.P No.8754 of 2025; M.I. Arun J.; decided 15 July 2026; CNR KAHC010399952025.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; trial court directed to conduct trial as expeditiously as possible and parties directed to co-operate for early disposal. ¶57

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail refused; trial court directed to conduct trial as expeditiously as possible and parties directed to co-operate for early disposal.

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether Accused No.1/petitioner should be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.5017/2020 (arising out of Crime No.224/2019, Madhugiri Police Station) under Section 439 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

The offences alleged against the petitioner are heinous in nature and punishable with death or imprisonment for life; if the prosecution's contentions are proved, the petitioner will have to undergo incarceration.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

There is a possibility of the petitioner absconding or threatening the witnesses, as contended by the prosecution; this weighed against grant of bail.

¶51

Key takeaways

For the aforementioned reasons, the bail petition is rejected.ratio¶57
While rejecting bail, the trial court is directed to conduct the trial as expeditiously as possible and the parties are directed to co-operate with the trial court for early disposal of the case.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No.8754 of 2025 (under S.439 Cr.P.C. / S.483 BNSS) — Vijay Kumar, Accused No.1 in S.C.No.5017/2020 arising out of Crime No.224/2019 of Madhugiri Police Station, Tumakuru District, for offences punishable under Ss.302, 307, 397, 448 r/w 34 IPC, pending before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri — sought enlargement on bail. He was in judicial custody since 13.12.2019; only 11 of 40 prosecution witnesses had been examined; his counsel urged that the injured witness CW-2 had died, that co-accused 2 and 3 were already on bail, and that trial delay violated his speedy-trial right under Article 21. The State (HCGP) countered that the post-mortem and FSL reports and trial evidence showed his guilt, that he had given a false address being a native of Andhra Pradesh along with accused 2 and 3, and that the co-accused were absconding after bail. The High Court (M.I. Arun, J.) held the offences heinous and punishable with death or imprisonment for life, noted the possibility of the petitioner absconding or threatening witnesses, and rejected the petition, directing the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and the parties to co-operate for early disposal.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:36203 CRL.P No. 8754 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010399952025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8754 OF 2025

¶9

(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

VIJAY KUMAR

¶12

S/O SUBBAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT S.M. BHADAVANE, KARADIPURA, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI, TUMAKURU-572 132.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. PRABHU PUJAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADHUGIRI POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP.)

¶20

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., (FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1, ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.224/2019, S.C.NO.5017/2020 OF THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADHUGIRI POLICE STATION, MADHUGIRI, TUMKURU DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES

¶21

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:36203 CRL.P No. 8754 of 2025

¶24

CNR: KAHC010399952025

¶25

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 307, 397 AND 448 READ WITH 34 OF IPC, 1860 WHICH IS ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR DISTRICT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Accused No.1 is before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in S.C.No.5017/2020 pending before the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri arising out of Crime No.224/2019 registered by Madhugiri Police Station, Tumakuru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 397, 448 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent.

¶31

The allegations made in the police report are as under:

¶32

”17. �ೇ�ನ ಸಂ�ಪ� �ಾ�ಾಂಶ PÀ®A:302, 307, 397, 448 ರ/« 34 L.¦.¹

¶33

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:36203 CRL.P No. 8754 of 2025

¶36

CNR: KAHC010399952025

¶37

ಘನ �ಾ��ಾಲಯದ �ಾ�� ೆ ಒಳಪಡುವ ಮಧು"# $%ೕ& 'ಾ(ಾ ಸರಹದು* ಮರಬಹ,- �ೇ. ನ%/ರುವ ಪ0ಕರಣದ ಮೃತ 5ೌಡಪ7 ರವರ 8ಾ§ÄÛ, ಮರಬಹ,-, �ಾ0ಮದ ಸ�ೆ9 ನಂ.5/1A3 ರ ಜ;ೕ<ನ%/ರುವ �ಾಸದ ಮ�ೆ ಬ, ಈ >ೋ@ಾ�ೋಪ(ಾಪತ0ದ �ಾಲಂ ನಂ.12 ರ%/ ಕಂಡ ಎ1, ಎ2 ಮತು� ಎ3 ರವರು ಎ3 ರವರ 8ಾ§ÄÛ �ೆ .ಎ.64 BೆC.5765 �ೇ DEಚಕ0 �ಾಹನದ%/ D�ಾಂಕ:10/12/2019 gÀAದು �ಾG0 09-30 ಗಂIೆಯ%/, ಬಂದು, 5ೌಡಪ7 (ಮೃತ) ರವರ ಮ�ೆ�ೆ ಅGಕ0ಮ ಪ0�ೇಶ KಾL, ಸKಾನ ಉ>ೇಶDಂದ ಸದ# ಮ�ೆಯ%/ದ 5ೌಡಪ7 (ಮೃತ) ಮತು� �ಾ� 2 ರವ#�ೆ ಹಣ, ವಡ�ೆಗಳನುN ಎ%/OPDೕ�ಾ �ೊL ಎಂದು Bೆದ#�, ಎ1 ರವರು �ಾ� 2 ರವರ 8ಾ§ÄÛ ಸುKಾರು 500/-ರೂ 8ೆQೆ8ಾಳRವ ಒಂದು "Jio Lyf" S8ೈU ಅನುN Vತು � ೊಂಡು, ಎ1 ರವರು �ೊQೆ Kಾಡುವ ಉ>ೇಶDಂದ ಚೂ#Wಂದ �ಾ� 2 ರವರ ಕುG � ೆ ಬ, �ೊಯು* ರಕ � ಾಯಪL�ರುXಾ � ೆ . ಎ1, ಎ2 ಮತು� ಎ3 ರವರು 5ೌಡಪ7 (ಮೃತ) ರವ#ಂದ ಮ�ೆಯ%/ದ* Zೕರು«ನ ZೕಗವನುN ಬಲವಂತ�ಾ" Xೆ�ೆ�, ಅದರ%/ದ* ಒಟುP 13,668/-ರೂ. ನಗದು ಹಣ ಮತು� ಸುKಾರು 23,500/-ರೂ 8ೆQೆ8ಾಳRವ 4 �ಾ0ಂ 100 ;% ಮತು� 5 �ಾ0ಂ 300 ;% ತೂಕದ 2 \ನNದ ಉಂಗುರಗಳನುN >ೋ\�ೊಂಡು, ನಂತರ ಎ1, ಎ2 ಮತು� ಎ3 ರವರು 5ೌಡಪ7 ರವರನುN �ೊQೆ Kಾಡಲು Kಾತ�ಾL�ೊಂಡು ಎ2 ಮತು� ಎ3 ರವರು 5ೌಡಪ7 ರವರನುN �ೆಳ�ೆ] Zೕ,� ಅದು;�ೊಂ^ಾಗ ಎ1 ರವರು �ಾ� 2 ರವ#�ೆ �ೊಯು* �ಾಯಪL�ದ ಚೂ#WಂದQೇ �ಾG0 10-00 ಗಂIೆಯ%/ 5ೌಡಪ7 ರವರ ಕುG � ೆ �ೊಯು* �ೊQೆ KಾLರುXಾ � ೆಂದು ತ<_ೆWಂದ ದೃಢಪOPರುXೆ�.

¶38

ಪ0ಕರಣದ%/ ಆ�ೋ�ತರು ಕೃತ��ೆ] ಉಪbೕ"�ದ �ೆ .ಎ.64 BೆC.5765 �ೇ DEಚಕ0 �ಾಹನ ಮತು� ಚೂ#ಯನುN Bಾಗೂ >ೋ\�ೊಂಡು Bೋ"ದ* ನಗದು ಹಣದ cೈV 2168/-ರೂ, ಸುKಾರು 23,500/-ರೂ 8ೆQೆ8ಾಳRವ 4 �ಾ0ಂ 100 ;% ಮತು� 5 �ಾ0ಂ 300 ;% ತೂಕದ ಎರಡು \ನNದ ಉಂಗುರಗಳನುN Bಾಗೂ �ಾ� 2 ರವರ S8ೈU ಅನುN ತ<_ೆಯ%/ ವಶಪL��ೊಂLರುXೆ�. ಆದ*#ಂದ dೕಲ]ಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ #ೕXಾ� ಆ�ೋ�ತರು efಾಹ9�ೆಂದು ಈ >ೋ@ಾ�ೋಪ(ಾಪತ0.

<�ೇದ�ೆ :

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36203 CRL.P No. 8754 of 2025

¶43

CNR: KAHC010399952025

¶44

ಸದ# ಪ0ಕರಣದ%/, ಅKಾನತು�ಪL��ೊಂLರುವ ವಸು�ಗಳ cೈV �ೆಲವನುN 8ೆಂಗಳgರು ಎh.ಎ&.ಎU ತiರ ಪ#ೕfೆ�ೆ ಕಳRj��ೊOPದು* Biology/FSL/BS/775/2019ರ%/, �Eೕಕ#�ದು* ಎh.ಎ&.ಎU ವರD <ೕಡುವ Due date:26/03/2020 ಆ"ರುತ�>ೆ . ಆದ*#ಂದ ಎh.ಎ&.ಎU ವರDಯನುN Bಾಗೂ ಇತ�ೆ ಪlರಕ �ಾmnಗಳR >ೊ�ೆತ%/ ಸದ# �ಾmಗಳನುN ಕಲಂ:173(8) �.ಆo.�.� ಅLಯ%/ ಘನ �ಾ��ಾಲಯ�ೆ] ಸ%/ಸQಾಗುವpದು."

¶45

The case of the petitioner is that he is not guilty of the offences alleged. The alleged incident took place on 10.12.2019. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 13.12.2019 till date. There are 40 prosecution witnesses as per the police report and only 11 of them have been examined so far. It is submitted that CW-2, who was the injured witness, has subsequently died and there is no way for the prosecution to prove the case against accused No.1/petitioner. It is further submitted that accused nos.2 and 3 are already on bail. It is also submitted, due to the delay in the trial, the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated and he is entitled to a speedy trial or, in the alternative, to be released on bail. On the said grounds, it is prayed that the bail petition be allowed.

¶46

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:36203 CRL.P No. 8754 of 2025

¶49

CNR: KAHC010399952025

¶50

Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent submits that the post mortem report, FSL report and the evidence adduced before the trial court so far show that the petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged. It is submitted that the petitioner has deliberately given a false address and is in fact a native of Andhra Pradesh along with accused nos.2 and 3. It is further submitted that accused nos.2 and 3 are absconding after obtaining bail. It is also submitted that there is no delay in the proceedings and the trial will be concluded within a reasonable time. As there is prima facie material against the petitioner and the offences alleged against him are of a heinous in nature and are punishable with death or imprisonment for life, it is prayed that the bail petition be rejected.

¶51

It is seen that the offences alleged against the petitioner are heinous in nature and the same are punishable with death or imprisonment for life, if proved. If the contentions urged by the prosecution are proved, then the petitioner will have to undergo incarceration. Further, there is a possibility of the petitioner absconding or threatening the witnesses as contended by the prosecution.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:36203 CRL.P No. 8754 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

CNR: KAHC010399952025

¶56

For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is hereby

¶57

rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conduct the trial as expeditiously as possible and the parties are directed to co-operate with the trial court in early disposal of the case.

¶58

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶59

hkh. List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Vijay Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar v. the 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 Narayanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Khadeer Ahmed Khan Vs the Central Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

N Jayaram Vs R G Sreenivas

Chandra Shekhar Acharya Vs the Managing Director and CEO South Canara District

Sri M Shivamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chinnamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner