Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/4529/2026 of NANDISHA Vs THE STATE BY on 17 April 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:21231 CRL.P No. 4529 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4529 OF 2026 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: NANDISHA S/O SRIDHARA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/O
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4529 OF 2026
(439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
NANDISHA
S/O SRIDHARA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/O KOTTANAHALLI VILLAGE
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU – 572 107.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G M SHARATHKUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE BY
TUMAKURU RURAL PS,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY., HCGP)
Digitally
signed by
PAVITHRA
N
Location:
High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) CR.P.C
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.147/2024
(CC.NO.5345/2024) ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.116/2024 ON
THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AT TUMAKURU REGISTERED BY TUMAKURU RURAL P.S., FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 AND 379 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
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 ORDER
1. The petitioner/accused is before this Court seeking grant of regular bail in S.C.No.47/2024, arising out of 116/2024, pending on the file of VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru for the offence under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC.
HC-KAR
Brief facts of the case:
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. She lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner is a distant relative, used to visit the house of the complainant often. The amount kept in the shirt pocket of C.W.6 was found missing whenever the petitioner used to visit the house. However, there was no definite proof regarding the commission of theft of the said amount.
3. It is alleged that on 03.05.2024, the petitioner asked the deceased for a drink of water. When she entered the house to fetch it, the petitioner allegedly committed theft of the money from C.W.6’s shirt pocket. The deceased after witnessing the said incident, was unhappy and came out of the house saying that she would inform the said incident to her son. Fearing this threat, the petitioner attempted to strangle her, causing her to fall to the floor. In the meantime, he pressed her neck with his leg and committed her murder. Thereafter, he stole the gold chain of the deceased and
HC-KAR
concealed the same in the kerosene stove. Hence, the complaint.
4. Based on the said complaint, the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner and conducted investigation. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted.
5. Heard Sri. G.M. Sharathkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned HCGP for respondent-State.
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.05.2024. P.Ws. 1 to 8 have already been examined. There is no question of tampering the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen having deep root in the society. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
HC-KAR
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State vehemently submitted that the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The trial is yet to be concluded, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there may be chances of absconding from the case and he may not be available to face the trial. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant the relief, as prayed for.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears that the learned HCGP has placed the deposition of the witnesses. Prima-facie the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The recovery of gold chain has been effected at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition stands rejected.
(ii) However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same
HC-KAR
within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE
JS/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46