Sri Venu Gopal G Vs State of Karnataka

SRI VENU GOPAL G S/O GOPAL GOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT WARD No.6 NEAR LINCON SCHOOL THIMMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD SHANKAR LAYOUT, VTC ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 3 562 106.

¶10

&PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI KEMPE GOWDA C M, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY: ANEKAL POLICE STATION ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BY: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 3 560 001.

¶15

&RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CRIME

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:48422 CRL.P No. 14393 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

No.273/2025 OF ANEKAL POLICE STATION BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109(1) OF BNS ACT 2023.

¶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 the sole accused under

¶26

Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.273/2025 of Anekal Police Station registered for offence punishable under Section 109(1) of BNS, 2023.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶28

learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent 3State.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the injured is the mother-in-law of this petitioner. There was matrimonial dispute between petitioner and his wife and it is alleged that the said matrimonial dispute is caused by the injured who is mother-in-law of this petitioner. The injured has been discharged from the Hospital and she is out of danger.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48422 CRL.P No. 14393 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Now, the charge sheet has been filed and therefore, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. With this he prays to allow the petition.

¶33

Per contra learned High Court Government

¶34

Pleader for the respondent 3State would contend that there are 05 injuries and all are stated to be grievous in nature. The injuries are on vital part. C.W.3 and C.W.4 are eye witnesses to the incident. With this, she prayed to reject the petition.

¶35

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has

¶36

perused charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

¶37

As per charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner thought that the injured who is his mother-in-law is a cause for matrimonial dispute and therefore he assaulted her with machete on her head back and neck, and caused bleeding injuries. The wound certificate of the injured indicates that she has sustained 05 injuries. Out of them, two injuries are on

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48422 CRL.P No. 14393 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

limbs, one injury is on lip and one injury is on neck and there is fracture of t3 vertebrae. The injury on the neck is stated to be laceration. Considering the above injuries, they are not on vital part. The injured is stated to have been discharged from the hospital and she is out of danger. The petitioner is in custody since 09.09.2025 and as the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents. Considering above, the petitioner has made out case for grant of bail with conditions.

¶41

In the result, the following

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i) The petition is allowed.

¶44

ii) The petitioner is granted bail in Crime No.273/2025 of Anekal Police Station registered for offence punishable under Section 109(1) of BNS, 2023 subject to the following conditions.

¶45

a) The petitioner -accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48422 CRL.P No. 14393 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of

¶49

the jurisdictional Court.

¶50

b) The petitioner -accused shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶51

c) The petitioner -accused shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate for speedy disposal of case.

¶52

d) The petitioner -accused shall not commit any

¶53

offence. If he is found having involved in commission of any offence, the prosecution is at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to him.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶56

DSP

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri Venu Gopal G v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venu Gopal G v. State of Karnataka

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

Mukesh Kumar Vs State by

Mallegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Uma J M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Adarsha P S Vs the State of Karnataka

Arun Kumar. S @ Boda Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri. Pavan a R @ Pavan Kumar a R Vs the State by