Mr. Dinesh Kumar Vs State by Karnataka by

MR. DINESH KUMAR S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1, MUNESHWARA TEMPLE MALLANAPALYA, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 127.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

STATE BY KARNATAKA BY NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION, BANGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BULILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDITIONAL SPP)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED UNDER SECTION 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.197/2025 (CRIME NO.78/2025) REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE FOR THE

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49876 CRL.P No. 13916 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 103(1), 140, 61(2) AND 49 READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BNS AND SECTION 27(2) OF ARMS ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL AT BENGALURU.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by accused No.4 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant bail in S.C.No.197/2025 (Crime No.78/2025 of Nelamangala Town Police Station), registered for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 140, 61(2), 49 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27(2) of Arms Act, pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49876 CRL.P No. 13916 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

¶28

learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent - State.

¶29

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that, the allegation against this petitioner is instigating the other accused to kill the deceased. The deceased had illicit relation with C.W.1 - wife of this petitioner. There is no overtact alleged against the petitioner. The overtact was alleged against accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulting the deceased and causing his death. The circumstances against this petitioner are call details of he contacting accused No.3 continuously. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. With these, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶30

Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent would contend that, this petitioner is the main person who had motive to kill the deceased as he had an illicit relation with C.W.1 - wife of

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49876 CRL.P No. 13916 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

this petitioner. Accused Nos.1 to 3, at the instigation of this petitioner, assaulted the deceased and caused his death. There are call detail records of this petitioner in continuous contact with accused No.3 from 23.04.2025 to 27.04.2025. The charge sheet materials show that, there

¶34

is a prima-facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. With these, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for parties, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

¶36

As per the charge sheet, the case of prosecution is that, the deceased - Dileep Kumar had illicit relation with C.W.1 - wife of this petitioner. Even though, this petitioner has shifted with his wife to some other place, the deceased has not stopped his illicit relation with C.W.1. Therefore, this petitioner stated to have conspired with accused Nos.1 to 3 and assured them that, he will

¶37

- 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49876 CRL.P No. 13916 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

cooperate and look after the Court expenses. Due to the

¶40

said conspiracy and the instigation of the petitioner/accused No.4, accused Nos.1 to 3 have assaulted the deceased with weapons and caused his death. The petitioner was not present on the spot at the

¶41

time of the incident. The overtact of assault is alleged against accused Nos.1 to 3. The allegation against this petitioner is conspiracy with accused Nos.1 to 3 and instigating them and assuring them to look after the Court expenses. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.04.2025 and as the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents to the petitioner.

¶42

7. Considering all the above aspects, the petitioner

¶43

has made out a case for grant of bail with conditions. In the result, the following;

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The Criminal Petition is allowed . The petitioner is granted bail in S.C.No.197/2025 (Crime No.78/2025 of

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:49876 CRL.P No. 13916 of 2025

¶47

6 -

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Nelamangala Town Police Station), pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, subject to following conditions:

¶50

i) The 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 trial Court.

¶51

ii) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶52

iii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted by the Court and cooperate for speedy disposal of the case.

¶53

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶54

KLV

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Mr. Dinesh Kumar v. State by Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Dinesh Kumar v. State by Karnataka by

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. Mahesha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunil Vs State of Karnataka

Anandareddy K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Kumar @ Kumarnaika Vs State of Karnataka

Kum Najma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Praveeen @ Nepali Vs the State of Karnataka