IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 17226 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /

483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. JAGADISH SON OF GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT No.110

4^TH CROSS, RENUKANAGARA PRIYANAKANAGARA SEEGEHALLI, K.R PURAM BANGALORE – 560 049.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI K R NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE SRI. SUDHAKAR REDDY G S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by 1. STATE BY LAKSHMINAR AYANA K.R PURAM POLICE STATION MURTHY RAJASHRI REPRESENTED BY S P P Location: HIGH COURT OF HIGH COURT BUILDING KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED UNDER SECTION 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN S.C.No.1296/2025 (CR.No.317/2025 U/S 103(1), 61(2)(A), 238(A), 241 R/W 3(5) OF BNS ACT, 2023 (K.R.PURAM P.S).

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 S.C.No.1296/2025 arising out of Crime No.317/2025 of K.R.Puram Police Station pending on the file of 57^th Additional City Civil Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH -58) registered for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(A), 238(A), 341 read with Section 3(5) of BNS.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. C.W.1 who is the brother of the deceased has filed complaint on 24.04.2025 and he has not alleged the presence of the petitioner on the day of incident in the house of the deceased. But in his further statement recorded on 25.05.2025 he has named this petitioner as the person present in the house of the deceased as stated by the deceased. C.W.6 and C.W.7 are auto driver and maid servant of the deceased. They have stated regarding the quarrels between the petitioner and the deceased and the petitioner threatening the deceased to kill her. The car seized at the instance of this petitioner is parked in the parking area and no CCTV footage has been collected to show that the petitioner has parked the said car belonging to the deceased in Telangana. The charge sheet has been filed and therefore, the petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation. As the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, each of the circumstances has to be proved at the trial. With this, he prays to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State would contend that the knife and bloodstained clothes have been seized under mahazar. The car belonging to the deceased has been seized at the instance of this petitioner parked in Telangana. C.W.6 and C.W.7 have stated regarding threat by this petitioner to the deceased to kill her. C.W.8, who is the supplier at the bar has stated accused Nos.1 to 3 conspiring to kill the deceased on the day of incident between 12.00p.m. to 04.00p.m. The charge sheet materials show prima facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

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

6. As per charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is that this petitioner was residing with the deceased, who was transgender in her house. There were quarrels between the deceased and the petitioner as the deceased was insisting the petitioner to marry her. The further case of the prosecution is that as the deceased was insisting the petitioner to marry her, the petitioner along with other accused conspired to kill the deceased. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the deceased brought alcohol and went ins