Mr. Santosh. H. v. Vs State by Holehonnur Police Station

MR. SANTOSH. H. V. S/O. VISHWANATH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O. SARVAGNA NAGAR, BOMMANAKATTE SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. AND ALSO AT SRI KRISHNA LIG 1/6, 4^TH CROSS, VINOBANAGARA SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI K V SATEESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY HOLEHONNUR POLICE STATION BHADRVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 204. REPRESENTED BY: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING

¶15

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI K K KRISHNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43799 CRL.P No. 13544 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BAIL IN CC No.5829/2025 (CR.No.150/2025) OF HOLEHONNUR P.S, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC AT BHADRAVATHI, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 61(1), 127(1), 238, 103(1) AND READ WITH 3(5) OF THE BNS 2023 AND DIRECT THE PETITIONER BE RELEASED ON BAIL.

¶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 accused No.3 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.150/2025 of Holehonnur Police Station registered for offences under Section 103(1), 3(5) of BNS.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP who is assisted by learned counsel for defacto complainant.

¶27

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the allegation of assault on the deceased is against accused No.1 and 2. The petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of incident. The allegation against accused No.3 is that he has taken supari from accused No.4 and

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43799 CRL.P No. 13544 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

instructed accused Nos. 1 and 2 to kill the deceased. There

¶31

is no recovery from this petitioner. The alleged consideration of supari has not been passed from accused No.4 to accused No.3. Except voluntary statements of accused persons, there is no other circumstance against this petitioner. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. With these, he prays to allow the petition.

¶32

Learned Additional SPP who is assisted by the learned counsel for defacto complainant would contend that the offence alleged against the petitioner is a heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner has taken supari from accused No.4 to kill the deceased. Petitioner in turn has instructed accused No.1 to kill the deceased. The charge sheet material shows prima-facie case against the petitioner for the offence alleged against him. With these she prays for dismissal of petition.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:43799 CRL.P No. 13544 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on the court.

¶37

The accusation in the charge sheet is that deceased had illicit relationship with the second wife of accused No.4 and the deceased was coming in the way of marriage of daughter of accused No.4. Therefore, accused No.1 gave supari to accused No.3 to kill the deceased. Accused No.3 in turn instructed accused Nos.1 and 2 to kill the deceased. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have killed the deceased by assaulting with knife when he was going for walking. The only accusation against this petitioner is that he took supari from accused No.4 and instructed accused No.1 to kill the deceased. There is no recovery from this petitioner. There is no evidence regarding passing of supari amount from accused No.4 to this petitioner. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has to prove each of the circumstances at the time of trial. Considering the above

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:43799 CRL.P No. 13544 of 2025

¶39

5 -

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

aspects, the petitioner has made out grounds for grant of

¶42

bail with conditions. In the result, the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted bail in Crime No.150/2025 of Holehonnur Police Station subject to following conditions:

¶45

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the

¶46

jurisdictional Court.

¶47

(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶48

(iii) Petitioner shall attend the court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate for speedy disposal of the case.

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43799 CRL.P No. 13544 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in commission of any offence. If he is found involved, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of the offence.

¶52

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶53

DKB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 Ct.sm

Mr. Santosh. H. v. Vs State by Holehonnur Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Santosh. H. v. Vs State by Holehonnur Police Station

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

Sri Venkatesh @ Prathap @ Papa Vs the State of Karnataka by Mandya Rural Police

Thousif Ahamad Vs State by Ramanagara Rural Police

Narasimhamurthy D H Vs the State by Kodigenahalli

B Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sayyad Javahar M @ Junaid @ Sayyad Javhar Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Srinivasulu Vs the State of Karnataka