Sri Dileep Vs State of Karnataka by

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KRISHNARAJA POLICE STATION, MYSURU CITY, MYSURU DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.2) ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.148/2021 OF KRISHNARAJA P.S. OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 504, 307, 302 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, MYSURU.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:47203 CRL.P No. 14805 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Accused No.2 in Spl.C.No.148/2021 pending before

¶24

the Court of II Additional District and Session Judge, Mysuru, arising out of Crime No.13/2021 registered by Krishnaraja Police Station, Mysuru City, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC is before this Court in this successive bail petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

FIR in Crime No.13/2021 was registered by

¶27

Krishnaraja Police Station, Mysuru City, for the aforesaid offences against Swamy and two others, based on the first information dated 08.02.2021 received from Madhusudhan

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:47203 CRL.P No. 14805 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

(CW-1) who is the injured eye-witness in the present case.

¶32

During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 09.02.2021 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against four persons for the aforesaid offences and petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court was rejected and therefore, he had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.9883/2021 which was dismissed on 04.01.2022

¶33

with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after CW-1 and CW-3 who are the eye-witnesses to the incident in question are examined before the Trial Court. Thereafter, petitioner had once against approached this Court in Crl.P.No.6841/2025 which was dismissed by this Court on 16.07.2025 in view of the order passed in Crl.P.No.9883/2021, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application before this Court after

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:47203 CRL.P No. 14805 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

examination of CW-1 and CW-3 is completed before the Trial Court. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court in this successive bail petition.

¶38

Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that CW-1 and CW-3 have been examined as PW-1 and PW-3 before the Trial Court and they have been treated as hostile witnesses in the present case. Petitioner has no other criminal antecedents. Accordingly, he prays to allow this petition.

¶39

Per contra , learned HCGP has opposed the

¶40

petition. He submits that allegation of assaulting the deceased is only as against petitioner herein in the charge sheet. In the alleged incident two persons have died and CW-1 and CW-3 are the eye-witnesses to the incident in question. There are certain other material witnesses to be examined. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss this petition.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47203 CRL.P No. 14805 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that FIR in the present case was registered against Swamy and two others, based on the first information received from CW-1 / Madhusudhan who is one of the injured eye-witness in the present case. During the course of investigation petitioner and other accused in the present were arrested and after completing investigation charge sheet has been filed against four persons and petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. As per the charge sheet allegations the accused persons had ill will against deceased Lohith, CW-5, CW-7 and CW-8, having regard to certain property dispute between them.

¶44

On 07.02.2021 at about 3 p.m. when deceased

¶45

Lohith and deceased Deepak were consuming alcohol along with their friends CW-1, CW-3 and CW-12 they had quarreled with accused No.1. Subsequently, accused No.1 came along with accused Nos.2 to 4 to the place where deceased Lohith and Deepak were consuming alcohol with their friends and after quarreling with them, they had

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47203 CRL.P No. 14805 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

assaulted the deceased and their friends with deadly weapon. Allegations of assaulting the deceased Lohith and Deepak with a knife is found only as against accused No.2 and accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 allegedly held the deceased so as to enable accused No.2 to assault them with the weapon. Undisputedly, accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have been enlarged on bail in the present case. CW-1 and CW-3 are the eye-witnesses to the incident in question who were with the deceased when the accused persons had assaulted them. CW-1 and CW-3 are now examined before the Trial Court as PW-1 and PW-3 respectively.

¶49

The depositions of the aforesaid witnesses

¶50

would go to show that they have been treated as hostile witnesses by the prosecution and were extensively cross-examined. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner even in the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses nothing material has been elicited from them which is incriminating as against the petitioner. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the material charge sheet

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47203 CRL.P No. 14805 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

witnesses are now examined and they have been treated as hostile witnesses. Petitioner who has no other criminal antecedents is in custody for the last more than four years. It is trite that accused person cannot be detained in custody as a punitive/preventive measure. Out of the 57

¶54

charge sheet witnesses cited in the present case, as on this date only three charge sheet witnesses have been examined as PW-1 to PW-3 by the prosecution. Therefore, the chances of the trial being completed and the case being disposed of on merits in the near soon is very remote. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner and also having regard to the fact that the eyewitnesses CW-1 and CW-3 have been already examined before the Trial Court, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following:-

¶55

ORDER

¶56

The petition is allowed .

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:47203 CRL.P No. 14805 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Spl.C.No.148/2021 pending before the Court of II Additional District and Session Judge, Mysuru, arising out of Crime No.13/2021 registered Krishnaraja Police Station, Mysuru City, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶60

a) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶61

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;

¶62

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

¶63

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

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:47203 CRL.P No. 14805 of 2025

¶65

9 -

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

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.

¶68

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶69

JUDGE

¶70

KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri Dileep v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dileep v. State of 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

Smt v Bhagyarekha Vs Sri v Sridhar

Smt. R Regina Vs B.N Babu Reddy

Sri. a Venkat Rao Vs Sri. a Muralidhara

N Mani Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Skyline Construction and Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S. Chawla Interbild Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Radha Vs Muniyamma