[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mohammad Abu Talah @ Shek Talaha vs The State By Channagiri Police on 23 February, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10975
CRL.P No. 186 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 186 OF 2026 (439(Cr.PC) /
483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMAD ABU TALAH
@ SHEK TALAHA
S/O. SHEK REHAMATHULLA,
AGED 22 YEARS,
OCC TAILS WORK,
R/AT COWSAR MASZID CIRCLE,
1ST CROSS,
CHANNAGIRI TOWN,
DAVANAGERE DIST. - 577213
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S G RAJENDRA REDDY.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE BY CHANNAGIRI POLICE
DAVANAGERE DIST.
RPTD. BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.MOHD. AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10975
CRL.P No. 186 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED
U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.177/2025 OF CHANNAGIRI POLICE STATION
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE
IN SC NO.116/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 103(1), 61(2), 238, 3(5) OF BNS 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.3 under Section
483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying
to grant bail in SC No.116/2025 arising out of Crime
No.177/2025 of Channagiri Police Station pending on the
file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Davanagere registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the
learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for
respondent/State.
NC: 2026:KHC:10975
HC-KAR
3. The learned counsel for petitioner would
contend that there are no eye witnesses to the incident,
and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial
evidence. One of the circumstances is that CW12 to CW15
have last seen the accused Nos.1 to 3, and seen together
near Kalayana Mantapa at 10.00 p.m., and there is
recovery of knife at the instance of this petitioner from
open place. He further submits that as the case of the
prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, it is for
the prosecution to prove each and every circumstances at
the trial. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not
required for further custodial interrogation. There are no
criminal antecedents of the petitioner. With this, he prayed
to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor for respondent/State would contend that CW12
to CW15 have last seen the accused Nos.1 to 3 with the
deceased near Kalyana Mantapa at 10.00 p.m., and the
dead body was found on the spot at about 02.00 a.m.
NC: 2026:KHC:10975
HC-KAR
There is recovery of a knife at the instance of this
petitioner from a land under a mahazar. The charge sheet
materials show that there is a prima facie case against the
petitioner for the offences alleged against him. With this,
he prayed to reject the petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsel, the Court
has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed
on record.
6. As per charge sheet, the accusation against the
accused persons is that accused Nos.1 to 3 on 01.04.2025
took the deceased at about 10.30 p.m. after the marriage,
and at about 10.45 p.m., the accused Nos.1 to 3 have
assaulted him with knife and caused his death. There are
no eyewitnesses to the incident, and the case of
prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. One of
the circumstances is that CW12 to CW15 have seen the
accused Nos.1 to 4 taking the deceased near the Kalyana
Mantapa at 10.30 p.m. There is recovery of knife at the
NC: 2026:KHC:10975
HC-KAR
instance of this petitioner under a mahazar. As the case of
the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, the
prosecution has to prove each of the circumstances at the
trial. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not
required for further custodial interrogation. There are no
criminal antecedents of the petitioner.
7. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner
has made out a case for grant of bail with conditions.
In the result, the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The petitioner is granted bail in SC
No.116/2025 arising out of Crime No.177/2025 of
Channagiri Police Station pending on the file of the learned
II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere
registered for the offences punishable under Sections
103(1), 61(2), 238, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023
subject to following conditions.
NC: 2026:KHC:10975
HC-KAR
a) The petitioner shall execute bail bond
for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for
the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
b) The petitioner shall not tamper the
prosecution witnesses either directly or
indirectly.
c) The petitioner shall attend the Trial
Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted
and cooperate for speedy disposal of the case.
d) The petitioner shall not involve in
commission of any offence. If he is found
involved in commission of any offence, the
prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of
bail granted to him.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
BKM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47
