IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8467 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SRI. GURURAJ, S/O LATE MADDURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT SINGRAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, (ACCUSED IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)

PINCODE - 562 110.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. BENIGN J.L. PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally STATE BY VISHWANATHAPURA PS., signed by SANJEEVINI J REPRESENTED BY SPP, KARISHETTY HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, Location: High Court of BANGALORE - 560 001.

Karnataka …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. S.P.P.)

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL FROM THE OFFENCE REGISTERED BY VISHWANATHAPURA POLICE IN CR.NO.22 OF 2022, DATED 08.03.2022 CURRENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF S.C NO.15039/2022 BEFORE THE V ADDL.

DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DEVANAHALLI TRAIL COURT U/S 302, 201, 506 OF IPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner - the sole accused is before the Court seeking his enlargement on bail for it having been turned down by the concerned Court.

2. There was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner on 07.04.2026 nor there is representation today. Therefore, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, the learned Additional SPP is heard in the matter.

3. The complaint comes to be registered on

08.03.2022, which becomes a crime in Crime No.22 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 506 of the IPC. The police then conduct investigation and file a charge sheet arraigning the petitioner alone as the sole accused in the matter. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in

5. The issue therefore is whether the petitioner who is accused of an offence under Section 302 of the IPC deserves to be released on bail. The issue need not detain this Court for too long nor delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KERALA v. MAHESH¹, observes as follows:

"….…. …….. ……..

15. It is well settled that though the power to grant bail under Section 439CrPC is discretionary, such discretion has to be exercised judiciously, as held by this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] . Speaking for the Court, Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J. said : (SCC p. 602, paras 3-4)

“3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order —

but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.

4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being:

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails

(2021) 14 SCC 86

a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should als