IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 15447 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /

483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. SRI PARASHURAMU @ RAMU

S/O LATE MADAIAH

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

R/AT No.15, A BLOCK

KALAMANDIRA

NEAR GOVRNMENT HOSPITAL

ANANDANAGAR, 2^ND CROSS

MARTHAHALLI

BANGALURU – 560 037.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY KAGGALIPURA POLICE

BENGALURU. Digitally signed by

REPRESENTED BY THE S P P

LAKSHMINARAYANA

MURTHY RAJASHRI HIGH COURT BUILDINGS

Location: HIGH

BANGALORE -560 001.

COURT OF

KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. B PUSHPALATHA, ADDL. SPP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED

U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN CR.No.415/2023 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT KAGGALIPURA POLICE NOW IN SC No. 190/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE

PUNISHABLE SECTION 201 AND 302 OF IPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.415/2023 of Kaggalipura Police Station pending in SC No.190/2024 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru registered for offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned additional SPP for respondent/State.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The petitioner is in judicial custody since last 2 years and till date only four witnesses are examined. The motive alleged is against accused No.1. The deceased had borrowed money from accused No.1 and accused No.1 was insisting deceased to repay the amount borrowed. The circumstances against the petitioner is that he and deceased were last seen together on 05.12.2023. The statement of CW.7 has been recorded on 01.03.2024 even though incident has taken place on 05.12.2023. Even though the wire has been stated to be recovered from the house of accused No. 1 at the instance of the petitioner, but no opinion of the doctor has been obtained as to whether that can cause strangulation injury which is noted in the PM report. With these, he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned Additional SPP would contend that the black cable wire has been recovered at the instance of this petitioner from the house of accused No.1. The P.M. report indicates that the death of the deceased is due to ligature strangulation. The charge sheet shows prima-facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. The petitioner is accused for offence under Section 302 of IPC in Crime No.20/2009 and he is having criminal antecedents. With these, she prayed to reject the petition.

5. In reply, learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner has been acquitted in the said Crime No.20/2009.

6. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

7. As per charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is that deceased had borrowed money from the accused No.1. Accused No.1 was insisting the deceased to repay the amount borrowed and the deceased has not repaid the amount borrowed. With the said enmity, accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 3 when deceased was sleeping on his terrace on 05.12.2023 at about 12 midnight, strangulated the deceased with cable wire and caused his death and accused No.3 has assisted the other accused to carry the body in a bag in order to destroy evidence. There are no eye witnesses to the incident and the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances against the petitioner is that he has been last seen with dece