Sri Srinidhi H S Vs State by Sub Inspector of Police

STATE BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRTHAHALLI POLICE STATION THIRTHAHALLI TALUK- 577 432 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

(BY SMT. PUSHAPALATHA, ADDL . SPP A/W SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT - THIRTHAHALLI POLICE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE, IN CR.NO.291/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT - THIRTHAHALLI POLICE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT FOR

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:9446 CRL.P No. 1377 of 2025

¶20

THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 326(g), 115(2), 324(4), 329(4) OF BNS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPLE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR-DIVISION) AND JMFC COURT, THIRTHAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Accused in Crime No.291/2024 registered by Thirthahalli

¶25

Police Station, Shivamogga District, for the offences punishable under Sections 326(g), 115(2), 324(4), 329(4) of BNS, 2023, is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶27

FIR in Crime No.291/2024 was registered by Thirthahalli Police Station, Shivamogga District, against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences based on the first information dated 31.12.2024 received from Pallavi D/o Rangappa. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 02.01.2025 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody.

¶28

Bail application filed by the petitioner before the jurisdictional

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:9446 CRL.P No. 1377 of 2025

¶31

Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No.29/2025 was rejected on 18.01.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶32

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and undisputedly, petitioner and the first informant were in love. It is only after their relationship got strained, the alleged incident had taken place. Major portion of the investigation is completed and petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the police for further investigation, if any, in the case. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶33

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. She submits that the alleged offences are grievous in nature and the petitioner has trespassed into the house of the first informant and lit fire resulting in causing damage to the property of the house of the first informant. Investigation of the case is pending. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶34

Perusal of the first information would go to show that the petitioner and the first informant were in love and for the last six months, the first informant had distanced herself from the

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:9446 CRL.P No. 1377 of 2025

¶37

petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner used to call the first informant repeatedly, but she was not answering his phone calls. On 30.12.2024 at about 7.30 p.m., petitioner allegedly came near the house of the first informant and abused her, and thereafter, on 31.12.2024, when there was nobody in the house of the first informant, petitioner allegedly had broke open the door lock of the house of the first informant and after trespassing into the house, he had lit fire and burnt the clothes of the first informant. It is in this background, the first informant had approached the police on 31.12.2024 at about 15.15 hours.

¶38

The records made available to this Court by the learned HCGP would go to show that major portion of the investigation has been completed and except the clothes of the first informant and certain articles which were in her bedroom, there is no other serious damage caused to the house property. Undisputedly, petitioner who has no criminal antecedents, is in custody for the last more than two months. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that petitioner's prayer for grant of regular bail is required to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following order:

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:9446 CRL.P No. 1377 of 2025

¶41

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.291/2024 registered by Thirthahalli Police Station, Shivamogga District, for the offences punishable under Sections 326(g), 115(2), 324(4), 329(4) of BNS, 2023, subject to the following conditions:

¶42

a) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶43

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶44

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶45

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:9446 CRL.P No. 1377 of 2025

¶48

e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶49

Sd /- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶50

KK

Sri Srinidhi H S v. State by Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinidhi H S v. State by Sub Inspector of Police

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

Mr Santhosh S Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraja Naika K Vs State by

Naveen Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Rajappa. H.E. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Gaviranganatha Swamy Alias Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Amal Krishna P U Vs State of Karnataka