[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Karthik @ Purushotham vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13649/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KARTHIK @ PURUSHOTHAM
S/O LATE VEERESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT NO.1452, AZAD NAGAR
KUDLIGI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT-583 135. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJU P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU CITY,
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. BHANUPRAKASH V.G., SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITION ON REGULAR BAIL, IN CRIME NO.18/2021
REGISTERED BY THE AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION,
2
BENGALURU CITY AND CHARGE SHEET HAS BEEN FILED FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 364, 302, 201,
120B, R/W 34 OF IPC, ARRAYING THE PETITIONER AS ACCUSED
NO.4 AND SUBSEQUENTLY REGISTERED AS SESSIONS CASE IN
SC NO.877/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-63).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 26.11.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CAV ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
2. This bail petition is a successive bail petition filed by
accused No.4. The accused earlier had approached this Court by
filing Criminal Petition No.9687/2021 and the same was
dismissed vide order dated 18.02.2022 and while rejecting the
same, this Court has taken note of the fact that prosecution
mainly relies upon the CCTV footage with regard to taking the
victim in a car by the petitioner and accused Nos.1 and 2. It is
3
also the case of prosecution that, in order to screen the
evidence, wallet belonging to the victim was given to petitioner
and the petitioner, in turn gave it to accused No.3. The Accused
No.3 is the architect in committing the murder, who gave supari
to accused persons and the same is recorded in CCTV footage
which is collected by the prosecution. Apart from that, the call
details of accused No.3, who gave supari discloses that calls are
made to this petitioner, but the petitioner was not present at the
time of committing the murder. But, all the way from taking him
to commit the murder, he was very much present. Thereafter
also, the belongings of the deceased was thrown by this
petitioner and recovery is also made at his instance and he only
pointed out the place where he had thrown the belongings of the
deceased. Hence, this Court comes to the conclusion that not a
case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Now,
the present petition is filed before this Court contending that all
the accused persons have been released on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
that 15 witnesses have already been examined as against 88
4
witnesses. The counsel would vehemently contend that accused
No.3 was granted regular bail by this Court in Criminal Petition
No.4522/2025 vide order dated 27.05.2025 and accused No.2
has also been released in Criminal Petition No.9518/2025 vide
order dated 09.09.2025. The counsel also would vehemently
contend that there is a clear violation of Article 21 and 22(1) of
the Constitution of India and as such, the petitioner is in jail for
more than 4 years.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his
argument relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in
VIHAAN KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. reported in
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13320 of 2024. Learned
counsel would submit that the prosecution did not establish the
motive in committing the alleged crime and conspiracy has been
vanished away as far as admissions of P.Ws.5 and 6. The
evidence of P.Ws.1 to 12 not corroborates with each other and
there are contradictions and improvements. The prosecution
cited all hearsay witnesses and their statements cannot be
believed. The petitioner was arraigned as accused only based on
5
voluntary statement of accused No.2 and there is no
identification parade of dead body and also the opinion of the
Doctor with regard to cause of death is still pending. It is also
contended that no Identification Parade was conducted to
identify the accused persons and entire allegations are made
based on the circumstantial evidence and this petitioner has
been arraigned as accused only based on suspicion and mere
suspicion or strong suspicion against the petitioner cannot take
place of legal proof. Learned counsel also would vehemently
contend that petitioner also may be enlarged on the ground of
parity, since the main accused have already been enlarged on
bail and one of the accused has committed suicide. The
prosecution is not able to secure the FSL report. The counsel
also vehemently contend that though P.Ws.13 and 14 have
supported the case of the prosecution, they are the inquest
witnesses and they categorically depose that inquest was
conducted under the PM report. The prosecution mainly relies
upon the evidence of P.W.7, last seen witness and his evidence
also not corroborates the case of the prosecution.
6
5. The counsel, in support of his argument, apart from
relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in VIHAAN
KUMAR's case, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
SURAJ VIJAY AGARWAL v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8432/2023
dated 21.08.2023 and brought to notice of this Court that when
the co-accused has been granted bail directed to release the
accused. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court,
paragraph Nos.26, 28, 31 and 32 of the VIHAAN KUMAR' case.
6. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in UNION Of INDIA v. K.A. NAJEEB reported in
AIR 2021 SC 712 and brought to notice of this Court paragraph
No.16, wherein discussion was made regarding with regard to
custody of a accused for a longer period and once it is obvious
that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has
suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts
would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.
7. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in JAVED GULAB NABI SHAIKH v. STATE OF
7
MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER in Criminal Appeal No.2787
of 2024 dated 03.07.2024 and brought to notice of this Court
paragraph No.7, wherein discussion was made with regard to
exercising of discretion that appellant is in jail as an under-trial
prisoner past four years; till this date, the Trial Court has not
been able to even proceed to frame charge and so also, we
wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude.
Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to
speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. The
Trial Courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well
settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a
punishment. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court
discussion made in paragraph Nos.18 and 19, wherein an
observation is made that when a crime is committed, a variety of
factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime.
Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of
value erosion or parental neglect and also to keep in mind Article
21 of the Constitution of India and petitioner is still an accused;
not a convict.
8
8. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in TAPAS KUMAR PALIT v. STATE OF
CHHATTISGARH in Criminal Appeal No.738 of 2025 dated
14.02.2025 and brought to notice of this Court paragraph Nos.7
and 8, wherein an observation is made that appellant is in
judicial custody for more than 5 years and State has no idea as
regards the time likely to be consumed to complete the
recording of oral evidence and also brought to notice of this
Court paragraph No.14. Learned counsel for the petitioner
relying upon these judgments would vehemently contend that
even though some of the witnesses have been examined, it may
take longer time. Hence, petitioner may be enlarged on bail
subject to conditions.
9. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State would vehemently contend that this petitioner
is a supari killer and this petitioner came along with accused
Nos.1 and 2 to Bengaluru and went to the house of deceased
and brought him along with accused Nos.1 and 2. It is also
contented that he has conspired with accused Nos.1 to 3 and
9
conspiracy has taken place at Chennai and came to Bengaluru
and accused No.3 was residing along with accused No.4. He
would also contend that CCTV records clearly disclose that this
petitioner went to the house of deceased and came out of the
deceased along with accused Nos.1 and 3. He would vehemently
contend that toll records disclose the presence of this petitioner
which is collected by the prosecution. He would further contend
that the belongings of the deceased were handed over to
accused No.3 and the same is evident and though committed the
murder, body was taken to Andhra and it was disposed of at
Andhra. The material available on record is also clear that this
petitioner was in touch with accused No.3 and the phone of
deceased was used by accused No.3 to make phone calls to his
biological mother to mislead her. The body was exhumed at the
instance of accused No.2 and accused No.4 enquired with
accused Nos.1 and 3 over phone and they are part of destruction
of evidence. He would contend that accused No.3 was released
on the ground that she was having two minor children. Hence,
question of parity does not arise. He would further contend that
witnesses have turned hostile is not a ground to grant bail and
10
there is no changed circumstance and this Court has already
considered the matter in detail and rejected the bail petition
considering the matter on merits. He would contend that
prosecution will complete the trial within 6 to 9 months.
10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State also brought to notice of this Court the statement of
objections filed to oppose this bail petition and particularly relies
upon the motive to murder the deceased Siddharth Singh and
accused No.3 is a step mother of deceased and with an intention
to knock off the property, murder was committed and this
petitioner has received the money from accused Nos.1 and 2 and
the sister of accused No.2 and also by accused No.3 and her
sister i.e., an amount of Rs.25,000/-. As per the voluntary
statement of accused No.3, she paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- cash
to accused Nos.1 and 2 in Chennai on 15.12.2020 and bank
statement is also clear for having transferred the amount. He
would vehemently contend that call record details of accused
No.3 would reveal the involvement of this petitioner and was
having contact with accused No.3. The CCTV records and close
11
circuit camera recordings also goes against the petitioner and
these are the factors have been taken note of by this Court while
rejecting the earlier bail petition of this petitioner. He would
contend that question of parity will not come to the aid of this
petitioner, since the principles regarding parity has been
highlighted in the case of TARUN KUMAR v. ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT in SLP (Crl.)
9431/2023, wherein the Apex Court has held that the parity is
not the law and while applying the principle of parity, the Court
is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose
application is under consideration.
11. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court
in X v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN in SLP (Crl.) No.13378/2024
dated 27.11.2024, wherein the Apex Court held that ordinarily
in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity etc., once the trial
commences, the Courts should be loath in entertaining the bail
application of the accused and applying the same principle to the
present case, the petitioner is accused of the serious crime of
murder. Hence, contend that petitioner is not entitled for bail.
12
12. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court
in MAMATHA NAIR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in
(2021) 7 SCC 442, wherein the Apex Court held that in case
the FIR and charge-sheet shows prima facie case, it is not proper
to extend the liberty of bail and hence applying the same
principle to the present case, it is very obvious that there is a
prima facie case as against the petitioner.
13. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court
in KRISHNAKANT v. STATE OF UP in Crl. Misc. Bail
Application No.33329/2020 dated 16.12.2022. He would
contend that there is no changed circumstance to enlarge the
petitioner on bail and the Apex Court also in catena of
judgments, including this judgment has held that witnesses
having turned hostile would be a matter of trial and hence,
cannot be appreciated in a bail petition. Hence, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor referring these judgments would
contend that some of the witnesses have supported the case of
the prosecution and not in entirety and this Court cannot sit and
13
appreciate the evidence available on record. Hence, prayed this
Court to dismiss the bail petition.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, this
Court also in the beginning itself made it clear that this Court
rejected the earlier bail petition of this petitioner considering the
material on record i.e., CCTV footage that he went to the house
of the deceased and came out along with accused Nos.1 and 3.
The material collected by the I.O. is also very clear that after
boarding the car, they proceeded along with the deceased and
the same is also found in the CCTV recording of the toll which is
evident. Apart from that, recovery is made at the instance of this
petitioner and also taken note of call details and handing over of
belongings of the deceased to accused No.3, who is the
mastermind and entrusted the work of eliminating the deceased
by entrusting supari to accused Nos.1 and 2 and this accused.
The prosecution mainly relies upon CCTV camera and the
witnesses have not been examined before the Court and CCTV is
also not placed before the Court and marked as material object.
14
When the Court has taken note of all the material available on
record, question of granting bail does not arise unless there is a
changed circumstance.
15. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that some of the witnesses have turned hostile, learned
counsel also not disputes the fact that P.Ws.13 and 14 have
supported the case of prosecution and the evidence of P.Ws.1
and 2 is elaborate and elaborate cross-examination was made by
the defence. As rightly pointed out by learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the respondent-State, this Court cannot sit and
appreciate the material available on record which vests with the
Trial Court to appreciate the evidence and material available on
record.
16. The other contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that doctrine of parity could be invoked. Having
perused the order passed by this Court in respect of accused
No.3 is concerned, accused No.3 herself entrusted supari to
eliminate the deceased and she being a lady and having two
minor children, the same was taken note of at the time of
15
enlarging the accused No.3 on bail and the same cannot be
ground to enlarge this petitioner on bail. So also in the case of
accused No.2 is concerned, subsequent to granting bail in favour
of accused Nos.3 and the bail petition of accused No.2 was
considered. But, in the case on hand, no doubt, this petitioner is
in judicial custody from last 4½ years, in VIHAAN KUMAR's
case, the Apex Court has taken note of custody of the accused
for a longer period and the offence in that case are 409, 420,
467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC. In the present
case on hand, the offences are serious in nature i.e., taking
away the liberty of a person.
17. It is also important to note that the Apex Court in
the judgment in KRISHNAKANT's case categorically held that
though the witnesses have turned hostile, the same would be a
matter of trial and the same cannot be appreciated in a bail
petition. It has to be noted that in the judgment of the Apex
Court in X v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN which has been relied
upon by the prosecution, it is held that ordinarily in serious
offences like rape, murder, dacoity etc., once the trial
16
commences, the Courts should be loath in entertaining the bail
application of the accused. In VIHAAN KUMAR's case also, the
Apex Court while making an observation, particularly taken note
of the fact that accused is in custody for a longer period. In the
case of UNION Of INDIA v. K.A. NAJEEB, the Apex Court
observed that, if the accused is in custody for longer period, the
Court has to take note of the same. But, in the case of JAVED
GULAB NABI SHAIKH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
ANOTHER discussion was made with regard to exercising of
discretion that appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past
four years; till this date, the Trial Court has not been able to
even proceed to frame charge. But, in the case on hand, charge
is framed and 15 witnesses have been examined and also
prosecution categorically says that they will complete the trial
within 6 to 9 months. The accused has the right for speedy trial
and an observation is made that the trial will ultimately conclude
but what period of time was not certain. When the prosecution
submit that they will complete the trial within 6 to 9 months,
merely because this petitioner is in custody for more than 4
years cannot be a ground to enlarge him on bail. Among the
17
witnesses, who have been examined before the Court, some of
them have supported the case of the prosecution and some of
them have turned hostile and they have been cross-examined by
the prosecution. As already discussed, merely because some of
the witnesses have turned hostile, the same cannot be a ground
to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
18. This court also while deciding the bail petition cannot
sit and appreciate the material available on record and the same
is the domain of the Trial Court to appreciate the evidence
available on record. However, taking note of the fact that
petitioner is in custody for more than 4 years, it is appropriate to
give direction to the prosecution to conclude the trial within a
time bound period. Though, it is submitted that it takes 6 to 9
months to conclude the trial, it is appropriate to direct the Trial
Court to conclude the trial and dispose of the case within 6
months.
19. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
18
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is dismissed.
(ii) The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial
within 6 months.
(iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner and the
prosecution is directed to assist the Trial Court
in disposal of the case within a time bound
period of 6 months.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
