Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagaraj R @ Nagesh vs State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47566
CRL.A No. 2073 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2073 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
SRI NAGARAJ R. @ NAGESH
S/O RAJESH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MURALI KRISHNA'S
RENTED HOUSE, 11TH CROSS,
NEAR MAGGA FACTORY, VITHAL NAGAR,
CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560018
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJANNA C., ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P.,
Digitally signed by
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH COURT
BANGALORE-01
OF KARNATAKA
2. SMT. SAROJAMMA
W/O RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.28,
CHIKKABYALADAKERE,
SHIVAKOTE POST,
HESARAGHATT HOBLI,
BENGALURU CITY 560089
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. Y. KOTRESHA, ADV. FOR R2.)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47566
CRL.A No. 2073 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED
22.09.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1606/2025 AND TO
GRANT REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.132/2025
(SPL.C.NO.604/2025) OF SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
BENGLAURU CITY FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S/
103,140(1),61(2),238 R/W SEC.395) OF BNS 2023 AND
SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant/accused No.1 has preferred this appeal
against the order dated 22.09.2025 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.1606/2025 by the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the
basis of complaint filed by one Smt. Sarojamma,
Soladevanahalli police have registered the case in Crime
No.132/2025 against four unknown persons for the
NC: 2025:KHC:47566
HC-KAR
offence under sections 140(1) and section 3(5) of BNS
2023. During the course of investigation, the
Investigating Officer has arrested the present appellant
and others. After investigation, IO has submitted the
charge sheet against accused 1 to 4 and other Juvenile
offenders J1 to J3 for the commission of offence under
sections 103, 140(1), 61(2) and 238 read with section
3(5) of BNS 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989. The appellant had filed bail application under
Section 483 of BNSS. The same came to be rejected by
the trial Court. Being aggrieved by this order, the
appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. Statement of objection is filed on behalf of
respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the accused Sri C.Rajanna would
submit that the appellant is very innocent. He has not
committed any offence as alleged against him. The name
of the appellant is not found in the FIR or in the complaint.
There are no eye-witnesses to this incident. The police
NC: 2025:KHC:47566
HC-KAR
have created one of the witnesses by saying that they saw
some four persons kidnapping the deceased forcibly. But
after arrest of the accused 1 to 4 and Juvenile offenders J1
to J3, the respondent police have not conducted
identification parade to identify the persons who were
present at the alleged place of kidnap as stated by the
said witness. The accused persons have not kidnapped the
deceased at any point of time. There are contradictions in
the charge sheet and as well as in the statement of the
alleged eyewitness. The prosecution papers do not disclose
any direct role of the appellant in the commission of
alleged offence. The entire case of the prosecution is
based on circumstantial evidence. But at the instance of
some of the persons who are inimically disposed towards
the appellant, the present charge sheet is filed. Accused
No.4 is already released on bail by the trial Court. On all
these grounds, it is sought for allowing this appeal.
6. As against this, learned HCGP Sri Lakshman.B for
respondent-State and learned counsel Sri Y.Kotresh for
NC: 2025:KHC:47566
HC-KAR
respondent No.2, would submit that there are prima facie
materials to attract the alleged commission of offence. The
trial court has properly appreciated the materials on
record and rejected the bail application and sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
7. I have examined the materials placed before me. On
the basis of complaint filed by Smt.Sarojamma,
Soladevanahalli Police have registered the case in Crime
No.132/2025 against four unknown persons for the
offence under sections 140(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023. During
the course of investigation, IO has arrested the accused
and after thorough investigation, IO has submitted the
charge sheet against accused 1 to 4 and Juvenile offenders
J1 to J3 for the offence punishable under sections 103,
140(1), 61(2), 238 read with 3(5) of BNS 2023 and
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
8. The alleged incident took place on 26.04.2025. On
the very next day, the Investigating Officer has recorded
the statement of the eyewitness Muniraj.M, S/o Late
NC: 2025:KHC:47566
HC-KAR
Munishyamappa, in which he has clearly stated that he has
witnessed the Act of the accused while they were
kidnapping the deceased Chandrasekhar. I also perused
copy of the charge sheet and the other materials. On
perusal of all these materials, the arguments advanced on
behalf of the appellant counsel cannot be considered. Only
after full-fledged trial, the arguments advanced on behalf
of the appellant can be considered. At this stage, there
are prima facie materials to attract the alleged commission
of offences, which are heinous in nature and punishable
with death or imprisonment for life. Viewed from any
angle, I do not find any error/illegality in the order passed
by the trial Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
DHA
