[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohan @ P Mohan vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11179
CRL.P No. 775 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. 775 OF 2026 (439(Cr.PC) /
483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MOHAN @ P MOHAN
S/O. LATE SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT No. ADORNO BHAVANA
BESIDE SACRED HEART ROAD
T.C. PALYA, K.R. PURAM
BENGALURU - 560 036.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANOJ H C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI K.R. PURAM POLICE STATION
Location: HIGH BENGALURU
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY
KARNATAKA
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M R PATIL, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11179
CRL.P No. 775 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED
UNDER SECTION 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON
BAIL IN S.C. No. 594/2025 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED IV ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSONS JUDGE MAYO HALL UNIT, AT
BENGALURU (CCH-21), ARISING OUT OF CR.No.900/2024 OF
K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCS PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 103 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 the sole accused under
Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in
S.C.No.594/2025 pending on the file of IV Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-
21) arising out of Crime No.900/2024 of K.R.Puram Police
Station registered for offence punishable under Section
103 of BNS.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent
-State.
NC: 2026:KHC:11179
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that earlier this Court has rejected the bail
petition. The changed circumstance is that C.W.1 to C.W.3
have been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and they have not
supported the case of the prosecution. C.W.1 who has
been examined as P.W.1 has stated that she has not filed
complaint. C.W.2 -P.W.2-wife of the deceased and mother
of the petitioner has also not supported the case of
prosecution. C.W.3 -P.W.3 has not stated that he has last
seen the petitioner and the deceased together. He placing
reliance on the decision rendered by this Court has
contended that in case based on circumstantial evidence,
the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. With this, he
prays to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent -State would contend that
earlier this Court has rejected bail petition of this
petitioner narrating all circumstances against the
NC: 2026:KHC:11179
HC-KAR
petitioner. Merely because only three witnesses have been
examined and they are not supporting the case of
prosecution is not a ground to grant bail. The prosecution
has to examine the other witnesses namely panch
witnesses, witness who has submitted FSL report and
Investigating Officer etc., With this he prays to reject the
petition.
5. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has
perused charge sheet and other materials placed on
record.
6. This Court while rejecting bail petition of this
petitioner by order dated 13.10.02025 passed in
Crl.P.No.5180/2025 has observed as under:
"6. Column 17 of the charge sheet indicates
that petitioner -accused is a son of deceased -
Subramani through his first wife. The deceased had
also second wife (C.W.4). The deceased has a
daughter by name Lavanya through his second
wife. The deceased was insisting the petitioner -
NC: 2026:KHC:11179
HC-KAR
accused to transfer his house property in the name
of said Lavanya and the petitioner -accused was
refusing for the same. In that regard there were
quarrels among the deceased and accused. That on
29.10.2024 at about 08.00 p.m. when deceased
was sleeping in the house after a quarrel between
the accused and deceased with regard to transfer of
property of the petitioner-accused in the name of
Lavanya, at that time petitioner -accused has slit
the neck of the deceased with knife and also
assaulted with hammer on his head several times
and caused his death. There are no eye witnesses
to the incident and the case of the prosecution is
based on circumstantial evidences. It is not in
dispute that the deceased, petitioner -accused and
grandmother were residing together in the house in
which the incident has taken place. There is no
explanation of the petitioner -accused regarding the
cause of death of the deceased who is his father.
There is a recovery of knife and hammer which
were found on the spot under spot mahazar and
they were also sent for chemical analysis to FSL.
There is also recovery of three cloths of the
petitioner -accused at his instance under mahazar
and they were also sent for chemical analysis to
FSL. FSL report indicates that hammer, knife and
NC: 2026:KHC:11179
HC-KAR
three clothes of the petitioner -accused were found
blood stains and the blood group is 'O' group. The
clothes of the deceased which were also subject to
chemical examination are also found to be stained
with 'O' group blood. Considering all these aspects,
there is a prima facie case against the petitioner -
accused for the offence alleged against him. If the
petitioner is granted bail, there is a threat to the
complainant and prosecution witnesses."
Even though the case of the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence, what are the circumstances that
have to be established have been considered while
rejecting the bail petition of the petitioner. Now, bail has
been sought on the ground that C.W.1 to C.W.3 have been
examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and they have not supported
the case of the prosecution. There are other witnesses
who have to be examined by the prosecution, namely
mahazar witnesses, witness who has submitted FSL report
and investigating officers. Merely because only three
witnesses have been examined and they have not
supported the case of prosecution is not ground for grant
NC: 2026:KHC:11179
HC-KAR
of bail. The petitioner has not made out any ground for
grant of bail.
7. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Since, the petitioner is in judicial custody, the trial
Court is directed to dispose the case as early as possible.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54
Ct.sm
