IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Mohammad Nawaz, J.
Nadeem Pasha @ Nadeem - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka Rep. By The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 9839 of 2025, Criminal Petition No. 9604 of 2025
Decided On : 16-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments of the petitioners and respondent. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis and decision on bail application. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER :
Mohammad Nawaz, J.
Both these petitions are filed under Section 483 of BNSS , 2023, by accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively, to enlarge them on bail in Crime No.70/2025 of Yelwala Police Station, Mysuru District.
2. Crl.P No.9839/2025 is filed by accused No.2 – Nadeem Pasha and Crl.P No.9604/2025 is preferred by accused No.3 – Syed Noor Pasha.
3. Initially, upon a missing complaint lodged by one Ragupati Raj S/o Rajagopal, regarding missing of his nephew S.Anand since 01.06.2024, a case in Crime No.195/2024 was registered on 18.07.2024 at Banashankari Police Station, Bengaluru City. In the course of investigation, accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested and interrogated. On the basis of a complaint lodged by the PSI, Banashankari Police Station, a case in Crime No.13/2025 came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 3, on 09.01.2025, for the offence punishable under Section 61 , 103, 238 r/w 3(5) of BNS , 2023.
4. During Investigation, it was learnt that a UDR No.12/2024 was registered at Yelwala Police Station, Mysuru District under Section 194 of BNSS , 2023, regarding an unnatural death of a person. The photograph was identified as of one S. Anand, nephew of the original complainant Sri Raghupati. The FIR registered at Banashankari Police Station was transferred to Yelwala Police Station, Mysuru District, on the point of jurisdiction and registered as Crime No.70/2025.
5. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 61 , 103(1), 238 r/w 3(5) of BNS , 2023.
6. It is the case of prosecution that, deceased S. Anand, was residing at House No.541, 9th Cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar West, Bengaluru. He came into contact with accused No.1, painter, while undertaking painting work at his residence. Over the time accused No.1 developed a close relationship with the deceased and gained his trust especially after discovering that he lived alone. It is alleged that the deceased was involved in a civil dispute concerning the ownership of his house, registered as O.S. No.5384/2021 before the Civil Court, Bengaluru, wherein he had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Giridhar Prakash, who, acting as GPA holder, executed a sale deed of the deceased’s residential house in favour of K. Prasad for a consideration of Rs.47,00,000/-. Taking advantage of the situation, accused No.1 under pretext of mediation, persuaded the deceased to settle the matter. On 11.06.2024, a compromise was entered into, under which K. Prasad paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the deceased through demand drafts and cheque. It is further alleged that accused No.1 encashed the said amount through one Hasteemal Jain, under the guise of expenses towards broker’s commission and advocate’s fees. After the sale was confirmed Purchaser initiated demolition of the house. Fearing that the deceased would discover about missing funds and unauthorized demolition, accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 3 hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased and convinced him to go on a trip. On 19.06.2024, accused No.2 took the deceased from Bengaluru to Mysuru in the car bearing registration No.KA-07-N-9147, belonging to accused No.1 and they stayed at MB International Lodge near Five Lights Circle. When the deceased expressed his desire to return to Bengaluru, accused No.2 informed accused No.1, who, along with accused No.3, came to Mysuru on 02.07.2024. Thereafter, the accused persons pacified the deceased and took him to different places, including Mangaluru and Tumakuru, until returning to the same lodge at Mysuru on 08.07.2024. With the intent to kill him and illegally retain the money, the three acussed conspired to murder him. It is alleged that, on 09.07.2024
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amarmani Tripathi
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another
AI
The court upheld that bail should be denied in serious offences involving premeditated murder due to potential harm to the investigation and the risk of witness tampering.
The court grants bail based on the petitioners' lack of prior criminal records and the protracted timeline of the trial process, emphasizing the necessity for a fair trial without undue detention.
Bail granted based on lack of criminal record and time served in custody amidst circumstantial evidence in a conspiracy murder case.
Bail applications must consider the nature and severity of the offence, potential flight risk, and the likelihood of influencing witnesses, especially when based on circumstantial evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.