Karnataka High Court
Mohan N vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43256
CRL.A No. 1570 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1570 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAN N,
S/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT HULIMANGALA VILLAGE
JIGANIHOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 105.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HOSKOTE P.S., BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally signed HIGH COURT BUIDILNG
by DEVIKA M
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. CHANNAKESHAVA
S/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT GANGAPURA VILLAGE
NANDAGUDI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU - 562 122.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43256
CRL.A No. 1570 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU
IN SPL.C.NO.910/2024 ON 23.07.20252, TO ENLARGE THE
APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.197/2024 REGISTERED BY
HOSAKOTE P.S. BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 302, 307, 109, 114, 120(B) R/W SECTION
34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST ACT 2015 (POA),
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.910/2024.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned High
Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State.
2. This is a successive criminal appeal filed by accused
No.3. Earlier, this Court considered the appeal of this appellant
vide judgment dated 17.04.2025 in Criminal Appeal
No.530/2025. While rejecting the appeal, this Court taken note
of the role played by this appellant and also made an
observation that this appellant is the architect of the crime in
committing the murder by taking supari and eliminated the
deceased. This Court also taken note in paragraph No.7 that
NC: 2025:KHC:43256
HC-KAR
this appellant conspired with accused Nos.1 and 2 and
thereafter, he himself took accused Nos.4 to 6 along with him,
in order to implement the conspiracy and inflicted injury to the
deceased with iron rod. There was recovery at the instance of
this appellant, though it may be a joint recovery at the instance
of other accused persons, the question of parity does not arise
as held in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD V. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI
MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 6
SCC 230, wherein the Apex Court held that while invoking the
principles of parity, the Court has to take note of the overt-act
of each of the accused.
3. Now, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that other accused persons have
been enlarged on bail and also one of the accused has filed an
application for discharge and the same is pending for
consideration and charge is also not framed. The counsel also
would submit that the appellant is in custody from last 1 year 3
months. Hence, he may be enlarged and bail.
NC: 2025:KHC:43256
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent No.1-State would submit that this
Court while rejecting the bail petition in detail taken note of the
material available on record and observation is made that the
appellant is not entitled for bail on the ground of parity, in view
of the discussion made in the judgment of the Apex Court and
the appellant has not made out any changed circumstance to
enlarge him on bail.
5. Having considered the grounds urged by before this
Court and also considering the overt-act allegation against this
appellant and also the role played by this appellant, merely
because he is in custody from 1 year 3 months, the same is not
a ground to enlarge him on bail in a heinous offence of murder.
No doubt, the counsel would submit that charge is not framed
and one of the accused has filed an application for discharge,
the same is yet to be considered. When an heinous offence
under Section 302 is invoked and this appellant is also a supari
killer and he took the other accused persons along with him to
eliminate the victim and when the recovery is made at the
instance of this appellant and C.W.1 is an eye witness to the
NC: 2025:KHC:43256
HC-KAR
incident, I do not find any ground to enlarge the appellant on
bail and no changed circumstance is made out in view of the
discussion made by this Court earlier in paragraph Nos.6 and 7
of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.530/2025.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is rejected.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
