Shri. Sandeep K Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SARASWATHIPURAM PS SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU CITY - 570 009 REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP.)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED WHO IS IN CUSTODY IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.116/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:12297 CRL.P No. 3472 of 2025

¶18

SARASWATHIPURAM POLICE AND CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 109,352 OF BNS 2023 IN C.C.NO.68/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE III JMFC COURT, MYSURU.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Accused in Crime No.116/2024 registered by Saraswathipuram Police Station, Mysuru City, for offences punishable under Sections 109 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS') is before this Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') seeking regular bail.

¶23

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶24

FIR in Crime No.116/2024 was registered by Saraswathipuram Police Station, Mysuru City, against the petitioner initially for offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS on the basis of the first information dated 12.11.2024 received from Smt. Ramya, wife of the injured victim - Honnegowda.

¶25

During the course of investigation of the case, petitioner herein was arrested on 12.11.2024 and

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12297 CRL.P No. 3472 of 2025

¶27

subsequently, remanded to judicial custody. Investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner. Bail application filed by the petitioner in Crl.Mis.No.152/2025 before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court which was rejected on 11.02.2025. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and the incident in question had taken place after the injured had refused to give the money borrowed by him from the petitioner. Petitioner has not assaulted the injured on his vital parts of the body. Investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet is filed. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶29

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the petition. He submits that victim has suffered multiple injuries and out of the same, five injuries are grievous injuries. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶30

Perusal of the averments made in the first information as well as in the charge sheet would go to show that petitioner and the victim-Honnegowda had financial transaction between them and on the alleged date of incident,

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12297 CRL.P No. 3472 of 2025

¶32

petitioner had summoned Honnegowda and had demanded repayment of the amount borrowed from him. It is only after Honnegowda refused to pay the borrowed amount, petitioner had abused and assaulted him with a sickle, causing injuries. Perusal of wound certificate of the inured victim would go to show that he wad admitted in the hospital for a period of six days and he is now discharged. Wound certificate would also reveal that victim has not suffered any grievous injuries on vital parts of his body. The condition of the injured is now said to be stable. Undisputedly, petitioner has no other criminal antecedents and is in custody from 12.11.2024. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail is required to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following:-

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is allowed.

¶35

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.116/2024 registered by Saraswathipuram Police Station, Mysuru City, for offences punishable under Sections 109 and 352 of BNS, subject to the following conditions:

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:12297 CRL.P No. 3472 of 2025

¶38

a) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶39

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;

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶45

SPV

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87

Shri. Sandeep K v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sandeep K 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

Mani @ Manu Vs State of Karnataka

Chandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivaprasad @ Prasi @ Parsi Vs State by Thilakpark Police Station

Sri Sanketh Kumar @ Chethan Vs the State of Karnataka

Manosiji Roy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rohith R Vs State of Karnataka