Karnataka High Court
Chandrahas @ Chandrahas Narayana ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48661
CRL.P No. 14938 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 14938 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /
483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRAHAS @ CHANDRAHAS NARAYANA POOJARY
S/O NARAYANA POOJARY
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT H No. 11-88J
SOMANATHA NAGARA BADAVANE
4TH CROSS ROAD, MOODA LAYOUT
MANGALURU, D K DISTRICT - 575 002.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ULLAL POLICE STATION
SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA MANGALURU CITY
MURTHY RAJASHRI D. K. DISTRCIT - 575 020.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND ALSO REP. BY
THE OFFICE OF SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.P.C (U/S
483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL.P AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48661
CRL.P No. 14938 of 2025
HC-KAR
CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
RELATION TO CR.No.126/2025 REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT ULLAL POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER, FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 126(2),109
R/W 3(5) OF BNS ACT, 2023.
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 (as per FIR) under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.126/2025 of Ullal Police Station registered for offences punishable under Section 126(2), 109, 3(5) of BNS.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent/State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Accused No.1 has been granted bail by the trial Court. The bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by the trial Court only on the ground that he is having criminal antecedents and involved in 14 criminal cases and he is a rowdy sheeter. He placing reliance on the decision -3- NC: 2025:KHC:48661 CRL.P No. 14938 of 2025 HC-KAR of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan vs. State of Rajasthan (2024 SCC Online SC 3763) would contend that only on the sole ground of criminal antecedents bail petition cannot be rejected. He further relied upon another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhimanue Etc.Etc. Vs. State of Kerala (2025 NSC 1136), wherein the Apex Court relied on Ayub Khan (supra) wherein it is held that the antecedents by themselves cannot constitute a ground for denial of bail. He further submits that the attempt to commit murder is stated to have been made by dashing a car against the two wheeler of the injured and the injured has sustained tenderness over his left forearm. As the charge sheet is filed petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. With these he prayed to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that petitioner by using his car has attempted to commit murder of the injured by dashing the car to the two wheeler of the injured due to which he has sustained -4- NC: 2025:KHC:48661 CRL.P No. 14938 of 2025 HC-KAR injury to his left forearm. CW.2 and CW.3 are eye witnesses to the incident. The petitioner is a rowdy sheeter involved in 14 cases. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is a threat to the injured and other eye witnesses to the incident. Petitioner is involved in offences like 307 IPC (5 cases), Section 384 of IPC (1 case), Section 302 of IPC (1 case) 397 of IPC (2 cases), Section 25 of Arms Act (2 cases). Section 392 of IPC (1 case). The petitioner is in the habit of committing offences. With these he prayed to reject the petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
6. One Steven D'Souza has filed first information on 02.08.2025 and based on that, the case came to be registered against petitioner and another in Ullal Police Station in Crime No.126/2025 for offences under Sections 126(2), 109, Section 3(5) of BNS. In the said first -5- NC: 2025:KHC:48661 CRL.P No. 14938 of 2025 HC-KAR information it is stated that on 02.08.2025 at about 06.00 p.m. when he was going to market on his two wheeler, accused No.1 - Mithun came on his two wheeler and stopped in front of the two wheeler of the first informant and restrained him from proceeding further. At that time, petitioner/accused no. 2 told him that he want to talk to him. When the first informant was proceeding on his two wheeler, at that time the petitioner drove his Innova car and dashed to the two wheeler of the first informant from front side with an intent to kill him. As a result, the mudguard of his vehicle has been damaged and he fell down. Thereafter, the petitioner took reverse of his car and again was proceeding to dash to the first informant, the first informant ran away. Considering the above averments of the first information, the accusation against the petitioner is attempt to commit murder of the first informant. As per wound certificate, the first informant has sustained tenderness over his left forearm. The first informant has been advised to take X-ray. The said X-ray -6- NC: 2025:KHC:48661 CRL.P No. 14938 of 2025 HC-KAR and further opinion regarding injury has not been furnished. Considering the above aspects, there is serious allegation against this petitioner of attempt to commit murder of the first informant.
7. The petitioner has been arrested on 03.08.2025 and he is in judicial custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to para 10 of Ayub Khan (supra) which reads thus:
10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, -7- NC: 2025:KHC:48661 CRL.P No. 14938 of 2025 HC-KAR the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents. In such cases, the question of incorporating details of antecedents in a tabular form does not arise. If the directions in the case of Jugal Kishore are to be strictly implemented, the Court may have to adjourn the hearing of the bail applications to enable the prosecutor to submit the details in the prescribed tabular format.
8. In the said judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner, the Apex Court has observed thus:
11. When the prosecution places on record material showing antecedents of the accused, and if the Court concludes that looking at the facts of the case and the nature of antecedents, the accused should be denied bail on the ground of antecedents, it is not necessary for the Court to incorporate all the details of the antecedents as required by paragraph 9 of the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore. The Court may only refer to the nature of the offences registered against the accused by referring to penal -8- NC: 2025:KHC:48661 CRL.P No. 14938 of 2025 HC-KAR provisions under which the accused has been charged.
9. Considering the observations in paras 10 and 11, the bail can be denied on the ground of antecedents and on the ground that there is a strong prima facie case. CWs.2 and CW3 are eyewitness to the incident. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a rowdy sheeter involved in 14 criminal cases for offences under Section 302, 307, 397, 326, IPC, if he is released on bail, there is a threat to CW1 to CW3 who are injured and eye witnesses. There is no long incarceration of the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 03.08.2025.
10. Considering all above aspects, the petitioner has not made out any grounds for grant of bail. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DKB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 Ct.sm