Deepak S/O Hanumanth Hartekar Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL, IN CRIME NO.92/2025, REGISTERED BY MURUDESHWARA P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 118(2), 352 OF BHARATIYA

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15055 CRL.P No. 104268 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 PENDING BEFORE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BHATKAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

¶23

The petitioner, who is the sole accused, in Crime No.92/2025 of respondent police, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhatkal, registered for the offences punishable under Section 109, 118(2), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is before this Court, seeking regular bail.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant Ashok Albert Dsouza lodged a complaint stating that, on 09.08.2025, he was assigned or deputed as a driver of a bus bearing No.KA-51/AJ-9498, belonging to Ganesh travels. The said bus was going towards Sangli from Mangalore. When it reached Bangarmakki, near Murudeshwara around about 11.45 p.m., the lorry which was being driven by the petitioner, overtook the bus and

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15055 CRL.P No. 104268 of 2025

¶26

3 -

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

the petitioner scolding the driver of the bus in a filthy language. When the complainant questioned the scolding of the petitioner, he got down from the bus to question him about the said scolding, when he reached near the lorry, the petitioner took the jack rod of the lorry and assaulted on his head and caused grievous injuries. Immediately, after he sustained injuries, he started running away from the place. However, the petitioner chased him, again assaulted on him and caused severe injuries. Therefore, he lodges a complaint against the petitioner. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.92/2024 on 10.08.2025 for the aforesaid offences.

¶29

Heard Sri B.Anwar Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State and perused the material placed before the Court.

¶30

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

¶31

petitioner that, the incident has occurred due to sudden

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15055 CRL.P No. 104268 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

provocation and the petitioner had no intention to commit injury or he had no intention to commit any offence. In fact, the driver of the bus was not giving side to him and he was trying to move away. However, he was continuously being obstructed by the driver of the bus. Then, he overtook the said bus and asked him as to why he was not giving the side to him to go ahead. In that altercation, the injured himself got down from bus and went to assault the petitioner. At that moment, in order to take self defence the incident had occurred

¶35

It is further submitted that the petitioner is aged

¶36

about 35 years and working as a driver. He is the only earning member of the family. The entire family is depending on his income. Suitable conditions may be imposed on him and he may be enlarged on bail. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15055 CRL.P No. 104268 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶40

Pleader vehemently opposed the said submissions and made available the wound certificate of the injured and he further submitted that, the petitioner had assaulted on the vital part of the body of the injured, as a result of which, the injured sustained severe injuries. He was hospitalized for a considerable length of time. However, he has been discharged from the hospital taking treatment. As the petitioner has committed heinous offence, he is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. Therefore, the petition may be rejected. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays for rejection of the petition.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that, the Petitioner who was the driver of the lorry was continuously trying to overtake the bus to go ahead. However, when the bus was not giving the side to him to go ahead, he overtook the said bus and asked him as to why he was not giving side to him

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15055 CRL.P No. 104268 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

to go ahead. In such altercation, the injured who is the substitute driver of the bus, got down on from a bus and tried to hit the driver of the lorry. In that incident, the petitioner might have committed the offence as stated supra . However, it cannot be construed that the petitioner

¶45

had intention to commit the murder of the complainant.

¶46

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

¶47

the case, it is appropriate to grant the bail to the petitioner Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) The petition is allowed .

¶50

ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail,

¶51

in Crime No.92/2025 of respondent police, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhatkal, on executing his personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) along with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15055 CRL.P No. 104268 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the

¶55

Investigating Officer, for investigation as and when it is required.

¶56

iv) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution

¶57

witnesses.

¶58

v) The petitioner shall not commit similar or any

¶59

other criminal offences till disposal of the case.

¶60

vi) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all hearing dates, without fail.

¶61

In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions enumerated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶62

Sd/(S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶63

MRK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Deepak S/O Hanumanth Hartekar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak S/O Hanumanth Hartekar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Sharanappa S/O Hanamantappa Kurabar Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath S/O Maruti Vs State of Karnataka

Gaurav Shyamlal Mehrotra S/O Shyamlal Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Jakirahusen Urf Jakir S/O Mahibubasab Urf Mabusab Nadaf Vs the State of Karnataka

Eshwar S/O. Hulugappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sharana S/O Shivappa @Shivanand Havinahala Vs the State of Karnataka