Sridhar Lakshman Sanadi Vs State by Station House Officer

S/O. LATE LAKSHMAN SANADI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.20, FLAT NO.301, 4^TH FLOOR, SRI SAI HOMES, 2^ND CROSS, CAMBRIDGE GARDEN LAYOUT, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA M B.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER BY K.R. PURAM PS, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY Smt. PUSHPALATHA B, ADDL. SPP)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.621/2025 OF K.R.PURAM P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIOONS 80, 82 READ WITH SECTION

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:44301 CRL.P No. 13473 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

3(5) OF BNS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED XXIX ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU CITY.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed by sole accused under Section

¶26

483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant bail in Crime No.621 or 2025 of K.R. Puram Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 85 read with a 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶27

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

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased was arranged marriage, and as per customary practices, the gifts were given to the petitioner by the

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44301 CRL.P No. 13473 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

family members of the deceased, and the family members of the petitioner also given gifts to the deceased. There were no any complaints by the deceased against the petitioner prior to the alleged incident. The petitioner and the deceased were residing in a rented flat at Bangalore.

¶32

The petitioner is a B.E. Mechanical Engineer working in Bangalore. In the UDR complaint, there was no any allegation against this petitioner harassing the deceased and demanding dowry. Subsequently on 07.08.2025, a complaint has been filed by the mother of the deceased making allegations, and there is a delay in filing the said complaint. Charge sheet has been filed, and therefore, the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. The petitioner is undertaking to appear before the Trial Court, co-operate for speedy disposal, and abide by terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44301 CRL.P No. 13473 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State would contend that, even the petitioner when he was in abroad, he has not talked with the deceased for three months, and even after receiving phone calls from the deceased, he did not talk with her stating that, he is busy in his work. The petitioner demanded money from the deceased to be brought from her parents for construction of house. The charge sheet shows that there is prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence alleged against him. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of he threatening the prosecution witnesses. With this, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel, the Court

¶37

has perused the FIR, complaint, charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

¶38

The marriage of the petitioner with the deceased had taken place on 04.12.2023, and it is

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44301 CRL.P No. 13473 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

arranged marriage. The marriage has been performed as per customs prevailing in their community, and there are exchange of gifts, and the gifts have been given to bride and bridegroom by their respective families. The deceased and the petitioner were residing in a rented flat at Bangalore. The deceased had not made any complaint against the petitioner of he harassing or demanding dowry etc. prior to the alleged incident. In the UDR complaint, there was no allegation against this petitioner demanding dowry etc. The complaint has been filed on 07.08.2025, even though the incident has taken place on 12.07.2025, the delay has not been explained in the complaint. The charge sheet has been filed, and therefore, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The petitioner is a B.E Mechanical Engineer working in Bangalore, and his presence can be secured easily for trial.

¶42

Considering the above aspects, the petitioner

¶43

has made out a case for grant of bail with conditions.

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:44301 CRL.P No. 13473 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

In the result, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) The petition is allowed.

¶50

ii) The petitioner is granted bail in Crime No. 621

¶51

or 2025 of K.R. Puram Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 85 read with a 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 subject to following conditions:

¶52

a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶53

b) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly;

¶54

c) The petitioner shall attend the Trial Court on all dates of hearing, unless exempted and cooperate for speedy disposal of the case.

¶55

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶56

BKM

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sridhar Lakshman Sanadi v. State by Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sridhar Lakshman Sanadi v. State by Station House Officer

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

Gurucharan H K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Harish G Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandregowda @ Chandru Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. S. Bhuvaneshwaran Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K N Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka