Dismissed¶42

Karthik @ Karu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2025CRL.P/11671/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail denied; S.439 Cr.P.C. / S.483 BNSS petition dismissed; Crime No.141/2025, Bannur Police Station, Mysuru; offences under Ss.189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 109, 190 BNS 2023 (attempt to murder/unlawful assembly-related); accused Nos.1 and 2 armed with knife and long; victim Mahesh suffered grievous injury per wound certificate; investigation incomplete; parity plea with co-accused Nos.3 to 5 (Crl.P No.11900/2025, bail granted 03.09.2025) not accepted; liberty reserved to seek bail before Sessions Court after final report; High Court of Karnataka; Mohammad Nawaz, J.; 17.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

On a perusal of the complaint averments, the Court found that accused Nos.1 and 2 were armed with a knife and long and assaulted the victim. ¶36

Karthik @ Karu Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:37196 CRL.P No. 11671 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11671 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KARTHIK @ KARU SON OF NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶10

SRINIVASA SON OF CHIRRIKUMARA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF MELLAHALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE-570 028.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY S.H.O. OF BANNUR POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:37196 CRL.P No. 11671 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT BAIL BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND DIRECTING THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, AT T.NARASIPURA, MYSORE DISTRICT TO RELEASE THEM FROM JUDICIAL CUSTODY IN CR.NO.141/2025, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 109 AND 190 OF THE BNSS, 2023 OF BANNUR POLICE STATION.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in Crime No.141/2025 of Bannur Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 109, 190 of BNS,2023.

¶27

FIR is registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Adarsha @ Adi against accused No.1 and 2 and 12-15 others, in respect of an incident of assault which took place on 29.06.2025 at about 8:45 p.m., in front of the shop of one Mahesh, Hunuganahalli Village, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:37196 CRL.P No. 11671 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

It is alleged that on account of previous enmity,

¶32

all the accused attempted to commit the murder of one Mahesh by assaulting him with knives and longs.

¶33

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the allegations against all the accused are one and the same and this Court has granted bail to similarly placed accused Nos.3 to 5 in Crl.P No.11900/2025 vide order dated 03.09.2025.

¶34

Learned High Court Government Pleader has

¶35

opposed the prayer for bail contending that there are specific overt acts against the petitioners and the injuries sustained by the victim are grievous in nature. He contended that the investigation is pending and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for bail.

¶36

Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the FIR. A perusal of the complaint averments goes to show that the petitioners i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2 were armed with a knife and long and assaulted the victim. As

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:37196 CRL.P No. 11671 of 2025

¶38

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

per wound certificate, the injury sustained by the victim is grievous in nature. Since the investigation is not yet completed, at this stage, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The petitioners are at liberty to move the Sessions Court for bail, once the investigation is

¶41

completed and final report is filed.

¶42

Petition is dismissed .

¶43

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶44

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Karthik @ Karu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthik @ Karu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Amith @ Amith Kumar Vs State by Women Police Tumakuru

Sri Harish S M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sheetal Sidram Sollapure Vs State by Cen Police

Avinash Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sharan @ Akash Bhavan Sharan Vs the State of Karnataka

Shakib @ Shabbu Vs State of Karnataka