Dadapeer Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER GRANTING BAIL THEREBY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT KENGERI POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER IN CR.No.170/2025 IN C.C.No.22527/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE VI A.C.J.M BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 103(1),49 OF BNS 2023THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY AND ETC.,

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This petition is filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 483 of of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to grant bail in crime No. 170/2025 of Kengeri Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 49 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:41519 CRL.P No. 10604 of 2025

¶32

3 -

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

¶35

learned Additional SPP for respondent - State.

¶36

Learned counsel for petitioners would contend

¶37

that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Except recovery of steel rod from the bike, mobile, clothes, bike and CCTV footage, there are no other circumstances against the petitioners. The prosecution has to establish each of the circumstances. As the charge sheet is filed petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation. With this he prayed to allow the petition.

¶38

Per contra, learned Additional SPP would contend that petitioner No. 1 – accused No. 1 had purchased steel rod from one Indrani and her statement has been recorded. There is recovery of steel rod, mobile, clothes and bike from accused No. 1 and the said rod is stated to be blood stained as per FSL report. The P.M. report indicates that cause of death of the deceased is due to shock and hemorrhage consequent to head injury

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:41519 CRL.P No. 10604 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

sustained. Charge sheet material show prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences alleged against them. With this, she prayed for dismissal of petition.

¶43

Having heard learned counsel for the parties this Court has considered the charge sheet records.

¶44

As per column 17 of the charge sheet the accusation against the petitioners is that after cancellation of engagement between accused Nos. 1 and 2, as accused No. 1 was arrested in theft case, accused No. 2 had married the deceased. After release of accused No. 1 in the said case, he contacted accused No. 2 and they had a relationship. Accused No. 2 was fed up with the drinking habit of deceased. On coming to know about the relationship between accused Nos. 1 and 2, the deceased quarreled with accused No. 2. Therefore, accused Nos. 1 and 2 conspired to kill the deceased. Accused No. 1 took the deceased on his motorcycle, they had a drink and accused No. 1 assaulted the deceased with steel rod on his head and caused his death. The entire case of the

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41519 CRL.P No. 10604 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. There is recovery of steel rod, mobile, clothes and bike from accused No. 1 and mobile from accused No. 2. There is also recovery of CCTV footage to show the last seen theory of deceased with accused No. 1. Since the case of

¶48

the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution has to prove each of the circumstances at trial. As charge sheet is filed, petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation. Considering the above aspects, petitioners have made out case for grant of bail with conditions.

¶49