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
NC: 2025:KHC:48661
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
NC: 2025:KHC:48661
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
NC: 2025:KHC:48661
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
NC: 2025:KHC:48661
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,
NC: 2025:KHC:48661
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
NC: 2025:KHC:48661
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
Ct.sm
