Sudhakar @ Sudha v. The State of Karnataka

NC:(2026:KHC:5286( CRL.P(No.(11012(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(30 (DAY(OF(JANUARY(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(MOHAMMAD(NAWAZ( ( CRIMINAL(PETITION(NO.11012(OF(2025(( ( (

BETWEEN:(( ( SUDHAKAR,@,SUDHA,S/O.,DHARMA,RAJ,,, AGED,ABOUT,32,YEARS,,,R/A,#215/B,,, ST TH1 ,MAIN,,6 ,CROSS,,,PRAKASHNAGAR,,, RAJAJINAGAR,,BENGALURU-560064., ALSO,AT,PALURU,VILLAGE,,,

CHITURU,DISTRICT,,ANDRAPRADESH., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.SHRIDHAR,FOR,,SRI.PRASHANTH,K.S,,ADVOCATES), , , AND:( ( THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, SRIRAMPURA,POLICE,STATION,,, REPRESENTED,BY,STATE,PUBLIC,PROSECUTOR,,, HIGH,COURT,BUILDING,,BENGALURU-560001., …RESPONDENT,VIJAYALAKSHMI M0KANKUPPI (BY,SRI.RAHUL,RAI,,HCGP), , Digitallytisignedtiby VIJAYALAKSHMI0M , THIS,CRL.P,IS,FILED,U/S.439,OF,CR.P.C,PRAYING,TO,GRANT, KANKUPPI Date:02026.02.03 BAIL,TO,THE,PETITIONER,IN,S.C,NO.348/2023,(CR.NO.209/2016),OF, 10:18:150+0530 THE,SRIRAMAPURA,POLICE,STATION,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,LEARNED, LXIII,ADDL.CITY,CIVIL,AND,SESSION,JUDGE,(CCH-64),BENGALURU, CITY,FOR,THE,OFFENCES,PUNISHABLE,UNDER,SECTIONS,143,,147,, 148,,363,,302,R/W.,34,OF,IPC,ON,SUCH,TERMS,AND,CONDITIONS, AS, THE, HON'BLE, COURT, MAY, THINK, FIT, TO, IMPOSE,, IN, THE, INTEREST,OF,JUSTICE., , , THIS, PETITION, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS, THIS, DAY,, THROUGH, VIDEO, CONFERENCING, HEARING, AT, DHARWAD, BENCH,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,MOHAMMAD,NAWAZ,

ORAL ORDER

¶1The petitioner has preferred this petition to enlarge him on bail in S.C. No.348/2023 pending on the file of the Court of 63rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 64), Bangalore City.

¶2The charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Sections 364 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Nos.1 to 4, showing accused No.3 as absconding. Petitioner is accused No.2.

¶3The law was set into motion on a complaint lodged by one Ramesh C. against 5 to 6 unknown persons. The material on record reveals that the petitioner was initially granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge on

26.10.2018 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.8623/2018. However, after he was released on bail, he absconded and therefore warrant was issued against him. He was produced under warrant on 28.09.2022 and is in custody since then.

¶4The learned counsel would submit that petitioner had earlier filed two petitions before this Court, which were dismissed and in the order dated 03.09.2024 passed in Criminal Petition No.999/2024, this Court directed the trial Court to expedite the trial. He submitted that there is no progress in trial and therefore, the petitioner who is languishing in judicial custody may be enlarged on bail. Further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has suffered injury to his leg and not able to move without the help of a walking stick and he needs assistance and the rod implanted in his leg has to be removed.

¶5The Learned HCGP opposed the prayer for bail contending that already leniency was shown to the petitioner but he misused the liberty by absconding, due to which, the trial has delayed. He contended that if the petitioner is granted bail, once again, he will abscond and in that case there will be further delay in trial.

¶6The petitioner has not furnished copy of the order passed in Criminal Petition No.999/2024 disposed on

03.09.2024. Further, it is seen that the petitioner had earlier preferred Criminal Petition No.3722/2023 to enlarge him on bail. The said petition was dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 12.06.2023. The dismissal of the said petition has not been mentioned anywhere in the petition and also not brought to the notice of the Court. While dismissing the said petition, this Court has taken into consideration the abscondance of the petitioner after he was granted bail and also his medical condition. The jail authority was directed to provide treatment to him whenever the need arises.

¶7The Learned Sessions Judge has now rejected the bail petition vide Order dated 17.07.2025 taking note of the conduct of the petitioner and also the chances of absconding and tampering the prosecution witnesses. There are no grounds made out to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. If the trial is not concluded within the next 6

months, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition for bail. With the said observations, petition is dismissed.

SD/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

kmv CT:PA