Sri Arun Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION CHANDRA LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 040. REPT. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:54195 CRL.P No. 14690 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS BAIL PETITION, ENLARGING THE PETITIONERS ACCUSED ON REGULAR BAIL IN CR.No.203/2025 OF CHANDRA LAYOUT P.S. BENGALURU PENDING BEFORE THE XLVI A.C.J.M BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 189(2),191(2),115(2),352,109,103(1) R/W 190 OF BNS.

¶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 Nos.1 and 2 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.203/2025 of Chandralayout Police Station, Bangalore registered for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 352, 109, 103(1) read with Section 190 of BNS.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶26

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶28

contend that the alleged assault by accused No.1 on the

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:54195 CRL.P No. 14690 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

deceased is in sudden quarrel. In the said quarrel, the petitioner No.1 -accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with fist on his face and neck and he fell down and sustained injury to his head. There was no any intention on the part of the petitioner -accused No.1 to kill the deceased. The deceased, accused No.1 and C.W.2 were under intoxication as they had consumed alcohol. The doctor who conducted post mortem examination has opined that the death is due to injury to head. The allegation against accused No.2 is that he has assaulted C.W.2 near the hospital. C.W.2 in his statement has not stated the same. Accused No.6 who is similarly placed to that of accused No.2 has been granted bail by this Court. With this he prayed to allow the petition.

¶32

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State would contend that the accused No.1 had assaulted the deceased on his face and neck and he fell down, sustained head injury and post mortem report indicate that cause of his death is head

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:54195 CRL.P No. 14690 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

injury. C.W.2 to C.W.6 are eyewitnesses to the incident. The accused No.2 has assaulted C.W.2 in the hospital. The charge sheet materials shows prima facie case against the petitioners. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

¶37

Having heard learned counsels, the Court has

¶38

perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

¶39

Cl.No.17 of the charge sheet indicates that

¶40

there was quarrel between accused No.1, deceased and C.W.2 to C.W.4. Accused No.1 has secured accused Nos.2 to 6. Accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with fist on his face and neck and he fell down and sustained head injury due to fall on the ground. The charge sheet materials indicate that the accused No.1, deceased and C.W.2 had consumed alcohol and they were under intoxication. The cause of death of the deceased as per post mortem report is due to head injury. The petitioner No.1 -accused No.1 has not used any weapon to assault the deceased. The deceased died after 13 days of the incident in the hospital.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:54195 CRL.P No. 14690 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

As the incident took place in sudden quarrel, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioner –accused No.1 had intention to kill the deceased. There are no criminal antecedents of accused No.1.

¶44

The allegation against accused No.2 is that he assaulted C.W.2 when he was near the hospital. The statement of C.W.2 does not indicate anything regarding the assault by accused No.2 on C.W.2 near the hospital. There are no criminal antecedents of accused No.2. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation. Considering the above aspects, the petitioners have made out case for grant of bail with conditions.

¶45

8. In the result, the following

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) The petition is allowed.

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:54195 CRL.P No. 14690 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

ii) The petitioners are granted bail in Crime No.203/2025 of Chandralayout Police Station, Bangalore subject to following conditions:

¶51

a) Petitioners –accused Nos.1 and 2 shall execute a personal bond for some amount Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶52

b) Petitioners –accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶53

c) Petitioners –accused Nos.1 and 2 shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate for speedy disposal of the case.

¶54

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶55

DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri Arun Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Arun Kumar v. the 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

Sri. Vibhishan Burman Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anand R @ Vijay Vs State of Karnataka

Nawaz Ali Khan @ Nawaz Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Harish L.v., Vs State of Karnataka

Mohana J S Vs State of Karnataka

Sathya Prasad C Vs State by Ramamurthy Nagar P .S.