IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 15504 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /

483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. SYED ALTHAF (JC)

S/O SYED BUDAN

AGED 48 YEARS

RESIDING AT POOL BHAG.

RAMANAGARA TOWN.

RAMANAGAMA DISTRICT - 562 159.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PARTHA SARATHY M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY RAMANAGARA TOWN POLICE

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT DR.AMBEDKAR VEEHI ROAD

Digitally signed by

BENGALURU-560 001.

LAKSHMINARAYANA

MURTHY RAJASHRI …RESPONDENT

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPP, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (FILED

U/S.483 BNSS) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.No.41/2025 REGISTERED BY RAMANAGAR TOWN POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF THE IIIrd ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGAR IN S.C.No.46/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER

SECTIONS 103(1),61,3(5) OF BNS IN THE ABOVE CASE.

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.1 under Section

483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.41/2025 of Ramnagara Town Police Station registered for offences under Sections 103(1), 61, 3(5) of BNS pending in S.C.No.46/2025 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent/State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the incident has taken place on 28.03.2025 and the statement of eye-witnesses i.e. CW.2 and CW.3 have been recorded on 21.05.2025. The delay in recording the statement of eye-witnesses creates doubt regarding them witnessing the incident. In the complaint, who has informed the complainant regarding the incident has not been mentioned. CW.2 and CW.3, inspite of witnessing the incident, have kept mum for 54 days and that itself creates doubt regarding they witnessing the incident. Now the charge sheet has been filed and therefore, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that there is a serious overt-act alleged against this petitioner assaulting the deceased with knife on his stomach. The P.M. report indicates that the deceased has sustained seven external injuries. CW.2 and CW.3 are eye-witnesses to the incident, who have stated the overt-act of this petitioner assaulting the deceased with a knife. The charge sheet materials show prima-facie case against the petitioner for the offence alleged against him. The offence alleged is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

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

6. The case of the prosecution as per charge sheet is that, accused Nos.1 to 3 conspired to kill the deceased. On 28.03.2025 at about 8.21 p.m. accused No.3 over phone asked the deceased to come to their area. The deceased went there and was talking with CW2 and CW3, at that time, accused No.2 by showing papers, how he got prepared documents pertaining to his father and uncle and quarreled with him, holding his shirt and assaulted him and at that time petitioner/accused No.1 came there and assaulted the deceased with knife on his stomach and chest due to which deceased died on the spot. The incident has taken place on 28.03.2025 and the statement of CW.2 and CW.3 eyewitnesses have been recorded on 21.05.2025. It is submitted that the delay in recording the statement of eye-witnesses creates a doubt regarding they witnessing the incident. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation.

7. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail with conditions. In the