Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 23.10.2026
Karnataka HC: Delay in FIR Registration Due to Police Negligence Cannot Justify Bail in Serious Murder Case
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate G Sridharamurthy. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id sriadv3@gmail.com .
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the bail appeal of G.M. Mohan, holding that the case record disclosed prima facie material connecting him to the alleged death of a young child and that the seriousness of the accusations weighed against releasing him on bail.
Background of the case
The appeal arose from a bail application rejected by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. Mohan, identified as accused No. 1, challenged that rejection before the High Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The matter concerns the death of a child, Vennila, who was about six years old. Police initially registered an unnatural-death report after a complaint raised suspicions regarding Mohan and the childβs mother, Priyanka H., who was named as accused No. 2. The accused initially obtained anticipatory bail in relation to the unnatural-death proceedings.
A later complaint led Kadugodi Police to register a criminal case and conduct a full investigation. The police subsequently filed a charge sheet alleging offences including murder, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention, conspiracy-related allegations, and an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Allegations considered by the Court
According to the prosecution case recorded in the order, the child was with Mohan and her mother on the night of 24β25 March 2026. The charge sheet alleged that Mohan assaulted the child and obstructed her airway, resulting in her death. It also alleged efforts by the accused to portray the death as natural and to conceal or destroy evidence.
The medical material was central to the prosecutionβs case. The post-mortem report and a further forensic opinion stated that the death resulted from asphyxia caused by obstruction of the airway along with blunt trauma to the abdomen. The Court noted that the case did not have an eyewitness, but found that the investigation had yielded circumstantial and medical material requiring consideration at trial.
Mohanβs arguments for bail
Mohanβs counsel argued that he was innocent, that the investigation had concluded, and that a charge sheet had already been filed, meaning his continued custody was not needed for investigation. The defence also emphasized that Priyanka H. had been granted bail.
The defence challenged the prosecution version on several grounds, including:
- A delay of about 70 days before the criminal complaint was registered.
- The absence of eyewitnesses and allegedly limited visible injuries noted during the inquest.
- Claims that the post-mortem material had been manipulated.
- The contention that matrimonial disputes between the childβs mother and the complainant had motivated a false case.
- The argument that any statement attributed to a co-accused before the investigating officer could not be used against Mohan.
Why the High Court refused bail
The High Court found no legal or factual error in the lower courtβs decision. It relied on the post-mortem report, inquest materials, statements, and police mahazars as showing prima facie material against Mohan.
The Court also treated the alleged offence as exceptionally serious because it involved the death of a young child and carries the possibility of life imprisonment or the death penalty. It observed that the child was allegedly in the company of Mohan and her mother at the relevant time.
On the 70-day delay, the Court accepted the prosecutionβs explanation that police initially failed to register a crime despite the suspicions raised in the earlier complaint. The order records that the concerned investigating officer was suspended and a departmental inquiry was initiated. In those circumstances, the delay was not considered a sufficient reason to grant bail.
Outcome and legal significance
Justice G. Basavaraja dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 1460 of 2026. The ruling leaves intact the earlier order refusing bail to Mohan. The order does not decide guilt or innocence. It determines only that, at the bail stage, the available material was sufficient to justify continued custody while the criminal case proceeds. The allegations remain subject to proof through the trial process.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Source: Karnataka High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707
Leave a Reply