Ashok Vs the State of Karnataka

Digitally signed by RENUKA (BY SRI ANILKUMAR NAVADAGI, ADVOCATE) Location: HIGH AND: COURT OF KARNATAKA THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KOLHAR POLICE STATION, TQ: KOLHAR, DIST:VIJAYAPURA – 586101, R/BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1444 CRL.P No. 200329 of 2025

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE PETITION AND GIVE A DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT KOLHAR P.S TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.3/2025 OF KOLHAR P.S. DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 103, 118, 118(2), 352, 351(2), R/W SECTION 190 OF THE BNS, 2023 WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BASAVANA BAGEWADI.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

¶21

It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.01.2025, a complaint came to be lodged by the complainant stating that the deceased was his brother’s son. He was staying along with his mother Padma and she was working in Anganawadi at Kolhar. It is further stated in the complaint that the petitioners herein have assaulted the deceased on the ground that he was eve-teasing the daughter of

¶22

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1444 CRL.P No. 200329 of 2025

¶23

petitioner No.2. Consequently, the deceased sustained injuries. Though the complainant and others had shifted him to the hospital, he died on 09.01.2025. Based on the complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered the case against five accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118, 118(2), 352, 351(2) read with Section 190 of BNS, 2013. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 5 respectively.

¶24

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences. They have been falsely implicated in the case. The allegations are omnibus in nature. There is no specific overt act made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners had no intention to commit the murder of the deceased, in fact, the deceased died two days after the incident. Though there are eyewitnesses to the incident, all the eyewitnesses are related to the deceased and therefore, the petitioners may be enlarged

¶25

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1444 CRL.P No. 200329 of 2025

¶26

on bail. Moreover, petitioner No.2 is the lady. She is aged about 42 years and the permanent resident of Kolhar village. Petitioner No.1 is aged about 26 years and he is running a business and he is the only earning member of the family. They will abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court in the event of their

¶27

release on bail.

¶28

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that the overt act of each petitioners has been mentioned in the complaint. There are eyewitnesses to the incident. The deceased died due to the assault made by the petitioners. Moreover, the offences are heinous in nature and the petitioners have approached this Court seeking for anticipatory bail which cannot be granted as a matter of right. The presence of the petitioners is very much necessary for interrogation. Thus, he prays to reject the bail petition filed by the petitioners.

¶29

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1444 CRL.P No. 200329 of 2025

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶31

respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it appears from the complaint that the uncle of the deceased had lodged a complaint establishing the relationship between the deceased and himself and he further states that on 07.01.2025, around 03-00 p.m., when he was at his home, he received an information regarding the quarrel which was being taken place near the Rachoteshwara temple. On hearing the said information, he went along with other persons and pacified the quarrel, however, by that time, the deceased had sustained several injuries. He further stated that the petitioners have assaulted the deceased on the pretext that he was eve-teasing the daughter of petitioner No.2.

¶32

Having considered the merits of the case, though it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner No.2 is a woman aged about 42 years and also considering the overt act made against her in the complaint, without adverting to

¶33

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1444 CRL.P No. 200329 of 2025

¶34

the merits of the case, the bail petition filed by petitioner

¶35

No.2 deserves to be allowed.

¶36

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition in respect of petitioner No.2 is allowed.

¶39

The respondent/Police is directed to release petitioner No.2 in the event of her arrest in Crime No.3/2025 registered by Kolhar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118, 118(2), 352, 351(2) read with Section 190 of BNS, 2013, pending before the Court of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi, subject to the following conditions:

¶40

(i) Petitioner No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶41