Jagadish vs State By

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1419 Kant
Judgement Date : 18 February, 2026

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Jagadish vs State By on 18 February, 2026

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2026:KHC:9993
                                                        CRL.P No. 17226 of 2025


                      HC-KAR




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 18TH 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
                            4TH 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
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI             K.R PURAM POLICE STATION
Location: HIGH              REPRESENTED BY S P P
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                   HIGH COURT BUILDING
                            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).
                              -2-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC:9993
                                      CRL.P No. 17226 of 2025


HC-KAR




    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 57th 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 -3- NC: 2026:KHC:9993 CRL.P No. 17226 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 -4- NC: 2026:KHC:9993 CRL.P No. 17226 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 -5- NC: 2026:KHC:9993 CRL.P No. 17226 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 inside the house of the deceased and accused Nos.2 and 3 were standing outside, watching that anybody comes to the house of the deceased. Accused No.1 who went inside the house has killed her by assaulting her with knife on her head, chest, stomach, waist. The petitioner and accused No.2 took the car of the deceased and went to Telangana and parked it there.

7. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. C.W.6 driver of the auto and C.W.7 the maid servant of the deceased have stated regarding the quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased and petitioner threatening the deceased to kill her. C.W.8 is Supplier in the bar and he has stated regarding he hearing the conversation between accused Nos.1 to 3 to kill transgender. There is seizure of car of -6- NC: 2026:KHC:9993 CRL.P No. 17226 of 2025 HC-KAR the deceased at the instance of this petitioner parked in parking area in Telangana. As the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstances at trial. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has made out case for grant of bail with conditions.

8. In the result, the following ORDER

i) The petition is allowed.

ii) The petitioner is granted 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 57th Additional City Civil Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH -58) subject to following conditions:

-7-

NC: 2026:KHC:9993 CRL.P No. 17226 of 2025 HC-KAR
a) The petitioner -accused No.1 shall execute a bail bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
b) The petitioner -accused No.1 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.
c) The petitioner -accused No.1 shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and cooperate for speedy disposal of the disposal.

Sd/-

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 Ct.sm