Siddaramanna @ Siddarama vs The State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 1927 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1927 Kant
Judgement Date : 27 February, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Siddaramanna @ Siddarama vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2026

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2026:KHC:12187
                                                           CRL.P No. 408 of 2026


                      HC-KAR




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                               BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                           CRIMINAL PETITION No. 408 OF 2026 (439(Cr.PC) /
                                             483(BNSS))
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    SIDDARAMANNA @
                            SIDDARAMA
                            S/O. LATE. NINGAPPA
                            AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
                            RESIDING AT CHENNABASAPPA
                            RENT HOLUSE, SHANTHI NAGARA
                            GANGONDANHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI
                            BENGALURU-562 123.

                            PERMANENT ADDRESS
                            THIMLAPURA, GUBBI TALUK
                            TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER

                      (BY SRI DINESH C.R, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI       AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI
                            POLICE STATION, BENGALURU.
                            REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                            HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                            BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY SRI MOHD. AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP)
                                   -2-
                                                NC: 2026:KHC:12187
                                            CRL.P No. 408 of 2026


HC-KAR




     THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED
UNDER SECTION 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
PETITION AND RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON
BAIL IN SC No.20/2025 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME
No.925/2024) OF MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 103 OF
BNS ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

    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 sole accused under Section

483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in S.C.No.20/2025

arising out of Crime No.925/2024 of Madanayakanahalli

Police Station, registered for offence under Section 103 of

BNS, pending of the file of I Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned

Additional SPP for respondent/State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the

case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial

NC: 2026:KHC:12187

HC-KAR

evidence. There is no recovery at the instance of this

petitioner. The petitioner was not present in the house at

the time of the incident. The petitioner is in judicial

custody since last 1 year 3 months. As the charge sheet is

filed, he is not required for custodial interrogation. With

this, he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned Additional SPP would contend

that the veil seized from the spot has been sent to FSL for

examination and it is found to be blood stained. The PM

report indicates that cause of death of the deceased is due

to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation. The death

of the deceased has taken place in the house of petitioner.

The charge sheet material show prima-facie case against

the petitioner for 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.

NC: 2026:KHC:12187

HC-KAR

6. As per charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is

that the petitioner is the husband of deceased and they

had a son aged 6 years. The petitioner and deceased were

residing together in a rented house. It is alleged that the

petitioner was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and

on 28.10.2024 at about 02.30 to 03.00 a.m. when

deceased was sleeping, the petitioner had strangulated her

with the veil and caused her death.

7. There are no eye witnesses to the incident and the

entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial

evidence. There is no recovery at the instance of the

petitioner. There was no any complaint by the deceased

against the petitioner prior to the incident. As the charge

sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial

interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the

petitioner. The petitioner has undertaken to appear before

the trial Court on all dates of hearing and abide by any

conditions to be imposed by this Court.

NC: 2026:KHC:12187

HC-KAR

8. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has

made out case for grant of bail with conditions. In the

result, the following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed. Petitioner is granted bail in

S.C.No.20/2025 arising out of Crime No.925/2024 of

Madanayakanahalli Police Station, pending of the file of I

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural

District, Bengaluru, subject to following conditions: