Dismissed¶¶53

Yathish M.S.@ Yathi v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2025CRL.P/12718/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru, CRL.P No. 12718 of 2025, Justice Shivashankar Amaranavar, order dated 07.11.2025: regular bail under S.483 BNSS / S.439 Cr.P.C. refused and petition dismissed in Crime No.123/2025 of Nelamangala Town P.S. (offences Ss.331(4), 111(ii)(b), 317(2), 305(a) BNS 2023). Grounds: prima facie case in charge sheet; recovery of 342.89 gms gold ornaments worth Rs.29,00,000/-; severe punishment under S.111(ii)(b) BNS (min. 5 years up to life + min. fine Rs.5 lakh); criminal antecedents (36 and 28 prior cases); risk of re-offending and threatening prosecution witnesses. Accused in custody since 18.07.2025; charge sheet filed. No precedents cited; no dissent.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet material shows a prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences alleged against them. ¶¶42

Yathish M.S.@ Yathi Vs State of Karnataka by — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether accused Nos.1 and 2 (petitioners) are entitled to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.123/2025 of Nelamangala Town Police Station under Section 483 BNSS, in view of the charge sheet material, the punishment prescribed under Section 111(ii)(b) BNS 2023, and their criminal antecedents.

¶¶27

Court's answer

The charge sheet material shows a prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences alleged against them.

¶¶42

Ratio / Principle

One of the offences under Section 111(ii)(b) of BNS, 2023 is punishable with imprisonment of not less than five years, which can extend to life imprisonment, along with a fine of not less than Rs. Five lakh.

¶¶46

Key takeaways

The petitioners have criminal antecedents: petitioner No.1 is involved in 36 cases and petitioner No.2 in 28 cases for similar offences.ratio¶¶48
If the petitioners are granted bail, there are chances of them committing similar offences again and threatening the prosecution witnesses.ratio¶¶48
Considering the prima facie case disclosed by the charge sheet material, the punishment under Section 111(ii)(b) BNS 2023, and the petitioners' criminal antecedents, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 12718 of 2025 filed under S.483 BNSS (equivalent of S.439 Cr.P.C.) by accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking bail in Crime No.123/2025 of Nelamangala Town P.S., registered for offences under Ss.331(4) and 305 BNS; charge sheet filed for offences under Ss.331(4), 111(ii)(b), 317(2), 305(a) BNS 2023. Prosecution case: house-break and locker break at CW1's house on 05.07.2025; 342.89 grams of gold ornaments worth Rs.29,00,000/- recovered at the instance of the petitioners; accused No.3 absconding. Court found prima facie case on charge sheet material, noted that S.111(ii)(b) BNS 2023 carries imprisonment of not less than five years extendable to life with fine of not less than Rs.5 lakh, and that petitioner No.1 is involved in 36 cases and petitioner No.2 in 28 cases for similar offences, with likelihood of repeat offences and witness intimidation if released. Held: petitioners not entitled to bail. Petition dismissed. — Shivashankar Amaranavar, J., 07.11.2025.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:45185 CRL.P No. 12718 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12718 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

YATHISH M.S.@ YATHI, S/O LATE SATHISH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT C/O RAVI, NO.80, 1^ST CROSS, MUNIREDDY LAYOUT,

¶9

GAREBOVIPALYA, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560068.

¶10

PERMANENT R/AT BARLINE ROAD, MAJID LAWYER HOUSE OPPOSITE, CHIKKAMANGALORE - 577101.

¶11

JAYANTH K @ BYATARI JAYANTHA S/O CHIKKAREVANNA @ YEMME KUMAR

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT ALUR VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562120.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SHANKAR H S.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY Smt.PUSHPALATHA B, ADDL. SPP)

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:45185 CRL.P No. 12718 of 2025

¶22

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.123/2025 OF NELAMANGALA TOWN P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 331(4), 305 OF BNS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2^nd ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, NELAMANGALA.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant bail in Crime No.123 of 2025 of Nelamangala Town Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 313(4), 305 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶30

contend that, now the investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners for the

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45185 CRL.P No. 12718 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 111(ii)(b), 317(2), 305(a) of BNS, 2023. He further submits that, even though the petitioners are involved in earlier cases, they have been granted bail in those cases. But the said cases registered against the petitioners are false cases.

¶34

The petitioners are ready to abide by any terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. The petitioners are in custody since 18.07.2025, and as the charge sheet is filed, they are not required for custodial interrogation.

¶35

Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State would contend that, there is a recovery of stolen golden articles and a rod from the petitioners. The charge sheet material shows prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences alleged against them. One of the offences alleged against the petitioners under Section 111(ii)(b) of BNS, 2023 is provided with punishment of imprisonment, which shall not less than five years, and it may extend the imprisonment for life, and fine not less than Rs.Five lakhs.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:45185 CRL.P No. 12718 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The petitioners have criminal antecedent. They are involved in 35 criminal cases for similar offences. If they are granted bail, there are chances of they threatening the prosecution witnesses and committing similar offences. With this, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel, the Court

¶41

has perused the FIR, complaint and charge sheet.

¶42

As per the case of prosecution, the petitioners broke open the door lock of the house of CW1 and also broke open the locker of the almirah in the night on 05.07.2025. 342.89 grams of gold ornaments worth Rs.29,00,000/- has been recovered at the instance of the petitioners, and accused No.3 had received 20 to 30 grams of golden chain, even in spite of knowing that, it is a stolen article, and he is absconding. The charge sheet material shows a prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences alleged against them. One of the offences under Section 111(ii)(b) of BNS, 2023 is provided with punishment of imprisonment for a term of not less than

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:45185 CRL.P No. 12718 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

five years, which can extend to life imprisonment, along with a fine of not less than Rs.Five lakh.

¶47

The petitioners are having criminal antecedents.

¶48

The petitioner No.1 is involved in 36 cases and petitioner No.2 is involved in 28 cases for similar offences. If they are granted bail, there are chances of they committing similar offences again, and threatening the prosecution witnesses.

¶49

8. Considering the above aspects, the petitioners

¶50

are not entitled for grant of bail.

¶51

In the result, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The petition is dismissed.

¶54

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE