IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5906 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

MADHU S @ KARIMADHU S/O SHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT 8^TH CROSS, IN FRONT OF JAYALAKSHMI THEATER, CHIKKEGOWDANADODDI ROAD, GUTTALU, MANDYA CITY - 571 432.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH .K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHIVALLI POLICE STATION REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01.

…RESPONDENT Digitally signed (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)

by PRASHANTH N V Location: High THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS)

Court of Karnataka PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C NO.1/2025 OF RESPONDENT SHIVALLI POLICE STATION FOR THE O/P/U/S 120B, 341, 504, 506, 323, 363, 364A, 368, 342, 384, 385, 389, 511, 201 OF IPC, PENDING DISPOSAL OF PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA.

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner-accused No.4 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.15/2024 of Shivalli Police Station, pending in SC.No.1/2025 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 341, 504, 506, 323, 363, 364(A), 368, 342, 384, 385, 389, 511, 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Anitha.

2. Heard Sri. Lakshmikanth.K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vinay Madadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials on record.

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative' for the following:

R E A S O N S

4. Petitioner being accused No.4 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 08.04.2024 and since then he is in judicial custody. The wife of the victim lodged the first information regarding kidnapping of her husband and demanding for ransom by unknown persons. FIR came to be registered and the investigation was undertaken. During investigation, the victim was rescued and the accused were apprehended. Now the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 7.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 are on bail, even though similar allegations are made against them. Accused Nos.1 and 7 are absconding. The present petitioner has approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.6708/2024 and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.07.2024 only on the ground that the test identification parade was scheduled to be held and the petitioner is required to be detained in custody.

6. Learned counsel submitted that inspite of such submissions which led to dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner, till date, no test identification parade was held. This fact is not disputed by learned HCGP. He fairly concedes that no test identification parade was held to enable the witness to identify the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents and as many as four criminal cases for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 400, 307, 302, 323, and 324 of IPC are pending against him and therefore, the informant was not ready to come and identify the petitioner in the test identification parade. Therefore, it is contended that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is likelihood of endangering the life of the informant and the petitioner may commit similar offence.

7. On perusal of the materials on record, it is noticed that serious allegations are made against accused Nos.1 to 7 that they have committed heinous offence by criminally conspi