Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Apsar @ Fruit Apasar vs State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:38013
CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010405722026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8551 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED APSAR @ FRUIT APSAR
S/O LATE ABDULLA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 3325/57,
ANEGUNDI ROAD,
2ND EDIGAH, MANDI MOHALLA,
MYSURU-570001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GAURAV N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by NANDINI M
S 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH BY SRIRANGAPATNA RURAL
COURT OF
KARNATAKA POLICE STATION,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. MUZAMIL BEG
S/O NASRULLA BEG,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO. NO.2438/1A,
YELEKATTE STREET,
-2-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:38013
CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010405722026
ASHOKA WEST, CROSS 21.,
LASHKAR MOHALLA.
MYSORE CITY, MYSURU CITY,
KARNATAKA - 570001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483
BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN RELATION TO CRIME
NO.85/2026 REGISTERED BY SRIRANGAPATNA RURAL POLICE
STATION MANDYA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
189(2), 191(3), 46, 61(1), 238, 103(1) AND 190 OF BNS 2023
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
COURT, S.R.PATNA MANDYA DISTRICT INVESTIGATION ON
SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THIS HONBLE COURT
DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
Accused No.1 in Crime No.85/2026 registered by
Srirangapatna Police Station, Mandya, for the offence
punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(3), 238, 103(1)
and 190 of BNS, 2023, is in this petition filed under
-3-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:38013
CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010405722026
Section 483 of BNSS 2023, seeking regular bail before this
Court seeking regular bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.85/2026 was registered by
Srirangapatna Police Station, Mandya, for the aforesaid
offences against Abeeb alias Sukka and five others. Based
on the first information dated 06.05.2026, received from
respondent No.2 herein, who is the cousin of the deceased
Mohammed Javed Alam @ Sahil. During the course of
investigation, petitioner was arrested on 11.05.2026 and
remanded to judicial custody. His bail application filed
before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court in Criminal Misc.
5183 of 2026 was rejected on 10.06.2026. Therefore, he
is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated
the grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioner’s
name is not found in the FIR. Except the confession
statement of the co-accused whose name is found in the
-4-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:38013
CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010405722026
FIR, there is absolutely no material collected by the
prosecution as against the petitioner till date. He submits
that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and only
based on the confession statement, his custody cannot be
continued. In support of his arguments, he has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Krishnamohan Reddy Vs. The State
ofAndhra Pradesh in SLP (Crl) No.7532/2025.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the
petition submits that investigation of the case is still under
progress and the mobile phone of the petitioner which has
been seized has been forwarded to Forensic Science
Laboratory. The bank statement of the accused is being
collected and scrutinized. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss
the petition.
6. FIR in the present case was registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(3), 238,
103(1) and 190 of BNS, 2023 against Abeeb alias Sukka
-5-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:38013
CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010405722026
and 5 others. It is not in dispute that petitioner’s name is
not found in the FIR. It appears that the accused named in
the FIR, as well as the deceased, are persons with criminal
antecedent and they are rowdy sheeters. During the
course of investigation, Accused Nos.2 and 3 were
arrested and based on the confession statement of the
said accused persons, it appears that the petitioner was
subsequently arrested on 11.05.2026. In the confession
statement of the aforesaid accused, they have stated that
the petitioner who had a ill-will against the deceased for
the reason that he was demanding money from him and
also interfering with his business, allegedly had promised
to pay money to the assailants for Court expenses in the
event they commit the murder of the deceased Sahil.
7. In the confession statement of accused Nos.1 and 2,
there is no such averment that they had received any
money from the petitioner through bank transactions. In
the confession statement, it is stated that the petitioner
herein had sent a sum of ₹3,00,000/- through one Tippu.
-6-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:38013
CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010405722026
Undisputedly, till date, statement of said Tippu has been
not recorded in the present case. During the course of
investigation, except recovering the petitioner’s mobile
phone, there is no other incriminating material collected
by the police against him till date. He is in custody in the
present case for the last more than 70 days. Therefore as
on this date, except the confession statement of the co-
accused, no incriminating material has been collected by
the police as against the petitioner herein.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Krishnamohan Reddy in paragraph Nos.39 and 40 has
observed as follows:-
39. The High Court has its own understanding of
Section 30 of the Evidence Act. It says that what is
admissible under Section 30 can also be looked into
at the stage of considering the plea of anticipatory
bail or even regular bail. However, we are not
impressed with the view expressed by the High
Court. We are of the considered opinion that such a
confession if any cannot be looked into at the stage
of anticipatory bail or even regular bail for the
following reasons: –
(i) Before a confession is taken into
consideration against a co-accused, the said
confession has to be duly proved against the
maker. It has to be clearly established that such
-7-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:38013
CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026CNR: KAHC010405722026
confession is not vitiated either by Section 24 of the
Evidence Act nor rendered inadmissible by Section
25 thereof, which can only be ascertained in the
course of trial. It must be clearly established by
leading cogent evidence in the course of the trial
before the case for the prosecution comes to an
end. [See: Dipak Bhai Jagdishchandra Patel v.
State of Gujarat & Anr., (2019) 16 SCC 547]. When
confession is made before police official, the same
cannot be proved in evidence at all. Statement
contemplated under section 30 should be relevant
and admissible, and that is the foremost
requirement of section and sine qua non.
(ii) Section 30 of Evidence Act postulates that
such a confession can be taken into consideration
only where the accused persons are jointly tried.
The said provision does not merely require that the
persons must be accused of the same offence, but
rather requires that they must be being tried jointly
for the said offence. [See: Queen Empress v. Jagat
Chandra Mali, ILR (1894) 22 Cal 50; Naresh v. R,
AIR 1938 Cal 479]. Joint trial here refers to the one
provided under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, the “Cr.P.C.”). Thus,
where the accused persons are either not being
tried jointly, or are yet to be charged for the same
offence and thereafter tried together, Section 30 of
the Evidence Act would be inapplicable. [See: Badri
Prasad Prajapati v. State of M.P., (2005) Cr.L.J.
1856]. Thus, Section 30 of the Evidence Act, would
not spring into action when the charges are yet to
be framed and the accused persons are yet to be
committed to trial, and any confession admissible
thereunder cannot be taken into consideration by
the courts.
(iii) Assuming for a moment that such a
confession can be looked into at the stage of
anticipatory bail or even regular bail, as per
Kashmira Singh (supra), such a confession can only
be pressed into consideration by the court as a rule
of prudence, to lend assurance to the other
evidence against such co-accused. Thus, there
-8-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:38013
CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010405722026
must exist other evidence on record, before the
court looks into such confession.
40. Where a confessional statement is otherwise
excluded or inadmissible by virtue of Section(s) 25
or 26 of the Evidence Act, respectively, there can
be no question of such confessional statements
being made admissible against another co-accused
by stretching it with the help of Section 30 of the
Evidence Act. Section 25 places a complete ban on
the making of such confession by that person
whether he is in custody or not. Section 26 lays
down that a confession made by a person while he
is in the custody of a police officer shall not be
proved against him unless it is made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate. [See: Sahib
Singh v. State of Haryana, (1997) 7 SCC 231]
Confessional statement contemplated under Section
30 of the Evidence Act, must be both relevant and
admissible in terms of the Evidence Act.”
9. It is not in dispute that petitioner has no other
criminal antecedent and he is said to be a businessman
having family. Major portion of the investigation is already
completed. All the assailants in the present case have
been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Under the
circumstances, I am of the opinion that, prayer made by
the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be
answered affirmatively.
Accordingly, the following:
-9-
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:38013
CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010405722026
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in
Crime No.85/2026 registered by Srirangapatna Police
Station, Mandya, for the offence punishable under
Sections 189(2), 191(3), 238, 103(1) and 190 of BNS,
2023 subject to the following conditions:
a) The petitioner shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to
the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all
the dates of hearing before the Trial Court
unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance
for valid reasons;
c) The petitioner shall not directly or
indirectly threaten or tamper with the
prosecution witnesses;
– 10 –
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:38013
CRL.P No. 8551 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010405722026
d) The petitioner shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the Trial Court without
permission of the said Court until the case
registered against him is disposed off.
e) The petitioner shall not involve in similar
offences in future.
f) petitioner is directed to appear before the
Station House Officer, Srirangapatna Rural
Police Station, Mandya and mark his attendance
on every first and third Sunday of the month
between 10 a.m. and 01.00 p.m. till the
investigation is completed and charge sheet is
filed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
Vmb
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59
