SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 931

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. M. Abdul Salam, Advocate For Smt. Shanthaladevi B.R., Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. K. Nageswarappa, HCGP

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.

Headnote:(A) BNS, 2023 - Sections 61, 103, 238 r/w 3(5) - Bail applications - Denied due to serious allegations involving premeditated murder and conspiracy - The case relies on circumstantial evidence and recovery of incriminating materials - Release may hamper ongoing investigation and apprehension of witness tampering - Judicial discretion must be exercised cautiously in heinous offences. (Paras 8-16)

(B) Bail - Principles governing grant of bail, particularly in cases involving serious allegations with the potential for severe punishment and risk of witness tampering - Courts must consider totality of circumstances in determining bail applications. (Paras 11, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitions were made by two accused in the murder of S. Anand, whose death stemmed from a conspiracy involving financial motives. The deceased was last seen with the accused before being murdered and disposed of. (Paras 1-6)

Findings of Court:
The serious allegations against the petitioners and the prima facie evidence presented indicate a compelling case warranting the denial of bail. (Paras 10-14)

Issues: The court examined whether the petitioners posed a risk to the integrity of the investigation or could evade justice if released on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the egregious nature of the offence, noting that the prosecution’s case is supported by recoveries and witness testimonies linking the accused to the crime and concluded that bail should not be granted.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top