ORDER : SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J. This petition is filed by the petitioner -accused No.1 praying to grant bail in Crime No.244/2023 of Tunga Nagar Police Station, Shivamogga pending in S.C.No.11/2024 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 450, 396, 120-B. 201 of IPC. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP for the respondent –State. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Except recovery of cash, no other circumstances against the petitioner. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 02 years 05 months and trial is not yet commenced. The petitioner met with road traffic accident 03 years ago and sustained injury to knee. He has been operated and implant has been fixed. The said implant requires to be removed by surgery. The petitioner is having L4-L5 disc bulge. He is treated in the jail hospital and he requires further treatment in the higher center. The accusation against the petitioner is that he held legs of the petitioner. But the post-mortem report indicates that the cause of death is smothering. There is no allegation against this petitioner of smothering the deceased. As the case is based on circumstances, the circumstances cannot be tampered with. The petitioner is resident of Shivamogga. He is having wife, three children and parents and he has to look after them. The petitioner has not been furnished with the grounds of arrest as mandated under Article 22 of Constitution of India. On that point, he placed reliance of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs State of Maharashtra and another , 2025 INSC 1288 . He further contented that as the trial is not yet commenced, it has affected speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. On that ground he is entitled to grant of bail and on that point, he placed reliance of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Akarsh K.R. Vs State of Karnataka , NC:2025:KHC:15899 . On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and grant bail to the petitioner –accused No.2. 4. On that ground he is entitled to grant of bail and on that point, he placed reliance of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Akarsh K.R. Vs State of Karnataka , NC:2025:KHC:15899 . On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and grant bail to the petitioner –accused No.2. 4. Per contra, learned Additional SPP for the respondent –State would contend that the petitioner was working as a driver in the house of deceased and C.W.1. He was aware that they have kept cash of Rs.30,00,000/- in the house and he misused his position and committed murder and dacoity. The petitioner is a main person he planned for murder and dacoity. The petitioner is a mastermind in committing the murder and dacoity. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have joined in the plan of the petitioner and they have also entered the house of the deceased and taken part in commission of offence of murder and dacoity. At the time of commission of offence, accused No.2 has sustained injury when he was assaulting the deceased. There is a recovery of cash of Rs.17,190/- from the person of the petitioner and cash of Rs.7,10,000/- at the instance of the petitioner from his house. The post-mortem report indicates that the deceased has sustained 28 injuries and cause of death is due to injuries sustained. There is CCTV footage containing movements of the petitioner and other accused at the time of commission of the offence. Bail petition of accused No.3 in Criminal Petition No.5933/2024 has been rejected by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 16.07.2024. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is threat to prosecution witnesses and chances of committing similar offence. On these grounds, she prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused charge sheet and other materials placed on record. 6. The husband of the deceased lodged the first information against accused No.1 and others for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. During investigation, accused Nos.1 to 6 were apprehended and the charge sheet is also filed. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 is the driver working under the informant. He was knowing that a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was kept in the house of the informant and the deceased. During investigation, accused Nos.1 to 6 were apprehended and the charge sheet is also filed. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 is the driver working under the informant. He was knowing that a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was kept in the house of the informant and the deceased. Therefore, he conspired with other accused and on the date of incident, accused No.1 first entered the house of the deceased as he was familiar with her and immediately thereafter, accused Nos.2 and 3 have barged into the house. It is alleged that the present petitioner had caught hold of the deceased, who is a helpless lady and closed her nose and the mouth tightly and made her to suffocate. Other accused have also joined hands and assaulted her repeatedly and caused her death to rob cash of Rs.30 lakhs with other articles. As per the postmortem report, deceased had sustained as many as 28 injuries including stab injuries. However, as per the provisional opinion of the medical officer, the death of the deceased was due to 'Asphyxia' as a result of 'Smothering'. 7. Even though it is stated that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident, as per charge sheet, cash of Rs.17,290/- has been recovered from the person of petitioner and cash of Rs.7,10,000/- has been recovered from the house of the petitioner at his instance. 8. It is pertinent to note that the nail clippings of the deceased were collected during investigation and as per FSL report, the residue is matched with the DNA of accused Nos.1 to 3. 9. The petitioner was working as a driver under the husband of the deceased who was working as Assistant Executive Engineer. The petitioner was aware of cash of Rs.30,00,000/- kept in the house by the husband of the deceased (C.W.1). Even though he was the driver, he has to accompany C.W.1 to Goa, it appears with plan of murder and dacoity and in order to rob the said cash of Rs.30,00,000/- he has sent another driver in his place to drive the car of C.W.1 to Goa i.e., on 16.06.2023 a day prior to the incident. All these facts and circumstances are prima facie probabilities of the case of the prosecution. 10. Another ground argued by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner –accused No.1 is that the petitioner has not been furnished with the grounds of arrest. All these facts and circumstances are prima facie probabilities of the case of the prosecution. 10. Another ground argued by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner –accused No.1 is that the petitioner has not been furnished with the grounds of arrest. In Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under; “56. In conclusion, it is held that: i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023); ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands; iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate. iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.” 11. On perusal of order sheet of Committal Court, in Crime No.552/2023 indicate that this petitioner -accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 6 were produced seeking remand to police custody on 28.06.2023. In the said order sheet dated 28.06.2023, there is mention of production of accused Nos.1 to 6 along with remand application, arrest notice, arrest memo, guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court and medical report of accused Nos.1 to 6. As there is mention of producing copy of arrest notice and arrest memo indicate that the grounds of arrest have been furnished to the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that grounds of arrest have not been furnished has no basis. 12. In the case of Akarsh K.R Vs State of Karnataka(supra) , the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed thus; 9. Material on record would go to show that the petitioner was pursuing his LLB degree course in Sri.Sharada School of Law, Chikkamagaluru as on the date of the alleged incident. He is in custody for the last nearly one year nine months. Material on record would go to show that the petitioner was pursuing his LLB degree course in Sri.Sharada School of Law, Chikkamagaluru as on the date of the alleged incident. He is in custody for the last nearly one year nine months. The order sheet of the trial Court which is made available to the Court would go to show that the case before the trial Court is at the stage of hearing the discharge applications filed by the accused who have been enlarged on bail. As on this date, even charges are not framed by the trial Court against the accused persons, though, this Court in Crl.P.No.10241/2024 by order dated 06.11.2024 had reserved liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court in the event trial in the case is not commenced within a reasonable time. It is apparent that no efforts are made either by the trial Court or by the prosecution to expedite the trial in the present case. Prosecution has in all cited 55 charge sheet witnesses in the present case and therefore, the chances of the trial being completed and the case being disposed of on merits in the near future is very remote. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JAVED GULAM NABI SHAIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER - 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 1693 at paragraph No.19, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows: " 19 . If the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime." 11. In the case of Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1536, the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking into consideration that the accused was in custody for a period of one year seven months and there was no sufficient progress in trial, without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, has granted regular bail to the accused. In the case of Nitish Adhikary alias Bapan vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2068 in a case where charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and 37 of the NDPS Act and accused was in custody for a period of one year seven months, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted regular bail on the ground that trial is still in the preliminary stage, as only one witness was examined.” 13. The petitioner is in judicial custody since last 02 years 05 months and trial is not yet commenced. Offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 302 and 396 of IPC. The offence of punishable under Section 302 is provided with punishment of death or imprisonment for life. The other offence under Section 396 of IPC is also provided with punishment of death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and fine. The offences alleged against this petitioner are heinous offences. The gravity of offence is required to be considered while considering the bail application. The petitioner who was a driver of C.W.1 being aware of cash of Rs.30,00,000/- kept in the house, in the absence of C.W.1, planned to commit dacoity and murder by misusing his position as driver has entered into the house of the deceased when she was alone and committed the offence of dacoity and murder with the help of other accused. Considering the said aspect, it is clear that it is a pre-planned and cold blooded plan of the petitioner in committing dacoity and murder. Considering the said aspect, even though he is in judicial custody for 02 years 05 months, trial is not yet commenced is not a ground for grant of bail. The trial is not yet commenced, since one or the other accused are filing bail applications which has prolonged the commencement of the trial. The delay in commencement of the trial can be attributed to accused persons. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab , Reported in (2024) 5 SCC 403 has held that, mere delay in trial pertaining to a grave offences cannot be used as ground to grant bail. 15. The petitioner is seeking grant of bail on medical grounds. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab , Reported in (2024) 5 SCC 403 has held that, mere delay in trial pertaining to a grave offences cannot be used as ground to grant bail. 15. The petitioner is seeking grant of bail on medical grounds. On perusal of documents produced in that regard indicate that the petitioner has met with road accident 03 years ago, sustained injury, he underwent surgery and implant has been fixed. The petitioner has stated that implant has to be removed. The petitioner is stated to have L4 -L5 disc bulge and requires treatment for the same. On perusal of documents produced indicate that he is already treated in the Government Hospital and also at McGann Hospital, Shivamogga. The said hospital is having all kinds of facilities to treat the ailments with which the petitioner is said to have been suffering. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the case of State of Karnataka Vs Sri Darshan etc , Reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 has observed thus; “22.3. The bail order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the High Court, was granted primarily on the basis of the alleged urgent medical condition of the 1st respondent / A2. However, a bare perusal of the medical records and subsequent conduct of the accused reveals that the medical plea was misleading, vague, and grossly exaggerated. 22.3.1. This Court has consistently held that bail granted on medical grounds must be based on credible, specific, and urgent need, not on general or future apprehensions. [Refer: State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi and Dinesh M.N. v. State of Gujarat, (supra)]. 22.3.5. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (supra), this Court cautioned that “bail on medical grounds can be granted only in exceptional cases where the medical condition is serious, cannot be treated in custody, and necessary facilities are not available in jail”. The burden to prove such necessity lies on the accused. 22.3.6. In the present case, A2 failed to demonstrate that the jail hospital was incapable of managing his condition or that adequate treatment could not be given in judicial custody. Instead, the High Court proceeded to grant bail without recording a definitive finding on the urgency, seriousness, or inadequacy of treatment in custody. 22.3.6. In the present case, A2 failed to demonstrate that the jail hospital was incapable of managing his condition or that adequate treatment could not be given in judicial custody. Instead, the High Court proceeded to grant bail without recording a definitive finding on the urgency, seriousness, or inadequacy of treatment in custody. This results in a perverse and legally unsustainable bail order, liable to be cancelled as per the principles laid down in Puran and Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal. In the present case also the petitioner failed to demonstrate that jail hospital and McGann Hospital, Shivamogga are incapable of managing his condition that adequate treatment could not be given in judicial custody. 17. Considering all the above aspects, the petitioner has not made out any grounds for grant of bail. In the result, the petition is dismissed.