[Cites 23, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Gokul Krishna @ Gokul vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 December, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 15038/2025
BETWEEN :
1. SRI GOKUL KRISHNA @ GOKUL
S/O SHAKTIVELU
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/AT:No.87, 1ST CROSS
NEW A .K COLONY
DODDABANASWADI
BENGALURU - 560 043.
2. SRI ARASU @ VALLARASU
S/O MANI
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/AT:7TH CROSS
ANNAMMA ROAD
NEAR INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
R. S. PALYA
BENGALURU - 560 033.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K RAMA SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BANASWADI POLICE STATION
2
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THE HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. B PUSHPALATHA, ADDL. SPP)
---
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CRIME
No.353/2024 AND IN SPL.C.C.No.2055/2024 FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 37,
120(B), 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 201, 302, 506 READ
WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC, SECTION 27(3) OF INDIAN
ARMS ACT, 1959 AND SECTION 3(1)(I), 3(2), 3(4) OF
KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 2000.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.12.2025, THIS DAY,
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING;
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CAV ORDER
This petition is filed by accused Nos.6 and 7 under
Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in
Spl.C.C.No.2055/2024 (Crime No.353/2024 of Banaswadi
Police Station) pending on the file of Prl.City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offence punishable
under Sections 37, 120-B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 201,
302, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, Section 27(3) of
Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Section 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4) of
Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000 (for
short 'KCOCA').
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Addl.SPP for respondent - State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
contend that as per averments of the complaint filed by
the wife of deceased, she came to know about the
incident through Manu (CW.2) that 4 to 5 unknown
persons assaulted the deceased. The said Manu (CW.2) is
an eye witness to the incident, but he has disclosed the
names of assailants to wife of the deceased. In the spot
mahazar as well as requisition for P.M. examination,
there is no mention of any assailants and assault is
stated to be by unknown persons. CW.2 in his statement
recorded on 07.05.2024 has disclosed the names of the
assailants and in his statement recorded under Section
164 of Cr.P.C. on 22.05.2025 has named accused
persons and also stated that he informed the incident to
the complainant. Considering the fact that CW.2 has not
informed the names of assailants to the complainant itself
indicate that he was not knowing the names of assailants
at the time of incident. In the inquest mahazar name of
accused No.10 - Pavan has also been stated as assailants
and he has been granted bail. The CCTV footage stated
to have been collected has not been furnished to CW.2.
Petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents and
no case is pending against them and therefore, there is
no compliance of Section 2(d) of KCOCA. The test
identification parade has not been conducted. Filing of
more than one charge sheet is required for invoking
provisions of KCOCA. On that point he placed reliance on
a decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Crl.A.No.1129/2021 c/w Crl.A.Nos. 1103/2021 and
1264/2021 DD 05.10.2021).
4. The accused person who is in judicial custody for
two years alleged to have committed offence under
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been
granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India (2024 INSC 604)
wherein it is observed as under:
"21. Before we part with the Judgment, we
must mention here that the Special Court and
the High Court did not consider the material in
the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus
was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore,
the appellant's case could not be properly
appreciated. When a case is made out for a
grant of bail, the Courts should not have any
hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the
prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty
of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of
bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule
and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in
a case like the present case where there are
stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the
relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with
only modification that the bail can be granted if
the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The
rule also means that once a case is made out for
the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to
grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in
deserving cases, it will be a violation of the
rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our
Constitution."
5. Petitioners are aged about 20 years and on that
ground they are entitled for grant of bail. On that point he
placed reliance on the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Crl.P.No.4594/2023 disposed on 16.08.2023.
6. The overt act alleged against the petitioners are not
fatal injuries. They have assaulted on hand and back of the
deceased and therefore, they can be granted bail. On that
point, he placed reliance on a decision of co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Crl.P.No.7435/2020 disposed on
10.12.2020.
7. Petitioner No.1 is a student and therefore, he is
entitled for grant of bail. On this point he placed reliance
on a decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Crl.P.No.7462/2014 disposed on 06.01.2015. On these
grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
8. Per contra, learned Addl.SPP would contend that
deceased and accused No.3 were having real estate
enemity. Petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 conspired with
accused No.3 to eliminate deceased. The bikes used by the
petitioners were standing in the name of their mother and
sister respectively and they were seized at their instance.
The alleged incident has been recorded in CCTC and footage
has been collected. In the said CCTV movement of 10
persons holding weapon is recorded. CW.2, the eye witness
in his statement before the police and also in statement
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has specifically
stated the overt acts of these petitioners assaulting the
deceased with deadly weapons on his vital part. These
petitioners have used the Bikes by removing number plate.
The mobile location of the petitioners indicate their
presence on the spot at the time of incident. Petitioner
No.1/Accused No.6 assaulted the deceased with long-
chopper on his back. Petitioner No.2/accused No.7
assaulted with knife on the head of the deceased. Serious
overt acts are alleged against the petitioners. The offence
alleged against the petitioners are punishable either with
death or imprisonment for life. The PM report indicate that
the cause of death is due to multiple injuries sustained.
The inquest mahazar indicate that the deceased has
sustained 31 external injuries. Accused No.10 who has
been granted bail is not a assailant. Petitioners even
though they knew that other accused are having criminal
antecedents, they co-operated with them and taken active
part in commission of offence. If the petitioners are
granted bail there is a threat to CW.2 who is the eye
witness and other prosecution witnesses. With these she
prayed to reject the petition.
9. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has
perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on
record.
10. The Banaswadi Police registered a case in Crime
No.353/2024 against 4 to 5 unknown persons in connection
with murder of D.Karthigeyan based on a complaint lodged
by the wife of deceased on 07.05.2024. The said case
came to be transferred to Organised Crime Wing, CCB,
Bengaluru for further investigation. Thereafter the
investigating agency invoked the provisions of KCOCA. On
completion of investigation, the ACP, OCW, CCB, Bengaluru
laid charge sheet against 13 accused persons for the
offence under Sections 37, 120-B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 341,
201, 302, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, Sections
3(1)(i), 3(2) and (4) of the KCOCA and Section 27(3) of
Arms Act.
11. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.3
who is a rowdy sheeter in Banaswadi Police Station, has
formed an organized crime syndicate for having control in
the area of Banaswadi, Hennur and Ramamurthynagar and
that he entered into a criminal conspiracy with other
accused persons in committing the crime in the case i.e.
murder of Karthigeyan and executed the plan with the
assistance of other accused persons. Petitioners / Accused
Nos.6 and 7 are residents of the area wherein Accused No.3
is living. Accused No.7 is a drop-out from the school and
that Accused No.6 was got introduced to Accused No.3
through Accused No.8. Accused Nos.6 and 7 joined the
organized crime syndicate of Accused No.3 with an
intention of earning money through illegal means. That on
07.05.2024 accused Nos.1 to 10 joined together in a room
taken on rent by accused No.3 for the purpose of
committing murder of the deceased and based on
information provided by accused No.8, all of them followed
the deceased in different vehicles and committed the crime.
It is the specific case of the prosecution that Accused Nos.6
and 7 were directly involved in the alleged crime and that
they have assaulted the deceased with machete and knife
respectively.
12. The vehicles used by the petitioners and weapons
used by them for commission of crime have been seized at
the instance of petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7.
Petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7 have given their confession
statement before the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Bengaluru South, wherein they have admitted their
participation in the crime. The said confession statement is
admissible under Section 19 of the KCOCA.
13. Accused Nos.8 to 10, 12 and 13 who are granted
bail by the Special Court is on the ground that they have
not actively participated in the commission of crime.
14. CW.2 is the eye witness to the incident and he
was moving with the deceased on his bike when accused
persons dashed their vehicle to the motor cycle of the
deceased. At that time, CW.2 also fell down and he is the
witness to the incident. CW.2 in his statement recorded on
07.05.2024 by the IO and also in his statement recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has specifically named these
petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 having assaulted the
deceased with machete and knife. The petitioners have
assaulted with the said weapons on the vital part of the
body of the deceased. PM report indicate that there are 31
external injuries over the dead body of the deceased. The
cause of death of deceased is due to multiple injuries
sustained. The offences alleged against the petitioners are
punishable either with death or imprisonment for life and
they knowingly participated in the alleged crime with an
intention to earn money by illegal means knowing that
other accused persons are having criminal antecedents. If
the petitioners are granted bail, there is a threat to CW.2
and other prosecution witnesses.
15. Considering the above aspects, the petitioners
have not made out any grounds for grant of bail. In the
result, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DKB
