Karnataka High Court
CRL.A/117/2026 of MANOJ M @ MANU Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 16 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:29189 CRL.A No. 139 of 2026 C/W CRL.A No. 117 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 139 OF 2026 (U/S 14( A ) (2)) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 117 OF 2026 IN CRL.A No.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 139 OF 2026 (U/S 14(A) (2))
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 117 OF 2026
IN CRL.A No. 139/2026
BETWEEN:
MANMATHA @ MANU,
S/O LATE. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT NO.87, SOUR VILLAGE,
VANAKANAHALLI POST,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU – 562 106.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SIJI MALAYIL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally
signed by
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI
B S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 560 001 .
2.
NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.54,
MACHENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MAYASANDRA POST,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU – 562 107.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. V. ANOOPKUMAR., HCGP FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
----
THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 17.01.2026, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL
AND ORDER FOR THE RELEASE OF THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN
SPL.C.NO.842/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 103(1), 61(2)
R/W 3(5) OF BNS, 2023, AND SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
1989.
HC-KAR
IN CRL.A NO. 117/2026
BETWEEN:
MANOJ M @ MANU,
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
CHUDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
VENKATANAHALLI POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALURU RURAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. N PADMAVATHI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ANEKAL` POLICE STATION,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2.
NAVEEN KUMAR,
S/O RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
HC-KAR
R/AT NO.54,
MANCHENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MAYASANDRA POST,
ATTIBELE VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUKU,
BENGALURU DISTRICT – 562 107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. V. ANOOPKUMAR., HCGP FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
----
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 2015 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S
PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2026, PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, IN SPL.C.NO.842/2025
AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL WHICH IS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU (ARISING OUT
OF CRIME NO.224/2025 OF ANEKAL POLICE STATION) FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 103(1), 61(2) R/W SEC.3(5) OF BNS
AND SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are filed by the appellants who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 3, seeking to set aside the order dated 17.01.2026 in Spl.C. No.842/2025 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and for releasing them on regular bail. Factual matrix of the case:
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was murdered in front of the shop of C. Ramachandrappa, situated at Vinayaka Nagar, Anekal Town, on 25.07.2025, around 0.30 p.m. A complaint came to be registered by a stranger against unknown persons. On registering the case, the respondent No.1 - Police have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. During investigation, the names of these appellants were included.
3. Heard Sri Siji Malayil, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.139/2026, Smt. N. Padmavathi, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal
HC-KAR
No.117/2026 and Sri M.V. Anoopkumar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State in both appeals. Respondent No.2, in both appeals, is served and unrepresented.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in the respective appeals is that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Though CWs.22 and 25 are claiming to be the eyewitnesses to the incident, there is a delay of seven days in recording their statements. Moreover, they did not choose to lodge a complaint. The appellants are innocent of the alleged offences. There are no criminal antecedents against them. They are permanent residents of Anekal Taluk and Bengaluru South respectively. They will abide by the conditions to be imposed in the event of their release on bail. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellants pray to allow the appeals.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader filed statement of objections and vehemently submitted that the overt acts alleged against the appellants are clear from the investigation that all the accused assaulted the
HC-KAR
deceased and committed murder of the deceased. Since the appellants are involved in the commission of murder of the deceased, it is not appropriate to grant the relief as prayed for in the appeal. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to reject the appeals.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, no doubt the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, though it is stated that CWs.22 and 23 are stated to be the eyewitnesses to the incident, at this stage, it is difficult to accept the said fact. Having considered the delay in recording the statements of the eyewitnesses, it is appropriate to allow the appeals.
7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Appeals are allowed. ii) The impugned order passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Spl.C.No.842/2025 dated 17.01.2026 is set aside.
HC-KAR
iii) The appellants are directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.224/2025 (Spl.C.No.842/2025) of respondent No.1 - Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 3(5), 103(1), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, subject to the following conditions: a) The appellants shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with one surety each for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. b) The appellants shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail. c) The appellants shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses. d) The appellants shall not hamper the Court proceedings. e) The appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court till disposal of the case.
HC-KAR
f) The appellants shall not commit or indulge in any other criminal cases, till disposal of the present case. In case the appellants violate any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.
Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE
NM/Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24