Prudvi Raj Vaddadi @ Pruthvi Vs State of Karnataka

PRUDVI RAJ VADDADI @ PRUTHVI S/O VADDADI SIMCHACHALAM AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. 13-14, 4/A CHANDAKA STREET NEAR DANDU BAZAR MAHARANIPETA VISHAKAPATNAM URBAN ANDRAPRADESH - 530 002.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI MOHAMMED NOORULAIN, ADV., FOR SRI MUZAFFAR AHMED, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT. ASMA KAUSER, ADDL. SPP)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (U/S 483 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THIS PETITIONER ON BAIL WHO IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRIME NO.80/2025 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 108 R/W 3(5) OF THE BNS, 2023 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XXX ADDL. CJM,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:24561 CRL.P No. 8920 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

BENGALURU BY IMPOSING ANY CONDITIONTO THE SATISFACTION OF THIS HONBLE COURT.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Accused No.1 in Crime No.80/2025 registered by Puttenahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023, is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

FIR in Crime No.80/2025 was registered by Puttenahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the aforesaid offences against petitioner and another based on the first information dated 17.04.2025 received from Smt. K. Swarna Latha, mother of deceased K. Saritha. During the course of investigation, petitioner was arrested and subsequently, remanded to judicial custody on 09.05.2025. His bail application filed before the

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:24561 CRL.P No. 8920 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.4456/2025 was rejected on 12.06.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

¶34

is a Doctor working in a reputed Hospital in Bengaluru. He is in custody for the last nearly two months. Investigation in the case is completed. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶35

Per contra, learned Addl. SPP has opposed the petition. She submits that deceased has left behind a death note which clearly makes out a case against accused Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶36

Perusal of the averments found in the first information submitted by the mother of deceased Saritha would go to show that deceased was working as a Staff Nurse in Appollo Hospital, Bannerghatta, Bengaluru and the petitioner was working as a Doctor in the very same Hospital. Saritha had committed

¶37

suicide in her house at MICO Layout, Bengaluru, on 16.04.2025. In the first information, it is alleged that on the next day i.e., on 17.04.2025, first informant found a death note left behind by the deceased in which it was stated that accused

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24561 CRL.P No. 8920 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

named in the FIR were the cause for the death of Saritha. In

¶41

the first information, it is averred that petitioner had a relationship with Saritha and subsequently, petitioner also developed intimacy with accused No.2, who was also working as a Doctor in the very same Hospital. When the same was questioned by Saritha, it is alleged that petitioner had assaulted her. It is in this background, Saritha had committed suicide in her house on 16.04.2025.

¶42

A reading of the first information would go to show that petitioner, who had developed a relationship with deceased who was working as Staff Nurse in the Hospital also had subsequently developed intimacy with accused No.2 and when the same was questioned by Saritha, she was allegedly assaulted. However, first information does not state the date on which the deceased had confronted the petitioner nor does it state as to when she was assaulted by him. The alleged act committed by the accused should have a proximity with the death of the deceased. Petitioner, who is a qualified Doctor is in custody for the last about two months. Major portion of the investigation is already completed. Under the circumstances, I

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:24561 CRL.P No. 8920 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶47

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.80/2025 registered by Puttenahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023, subject to the following conditions:

¶48

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

¶49

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;

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:24561 CRL.P No. 8920 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

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.

¶56

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶57

JUDGE

¶58

DN

Prudvi Raj Vaddadi @ Pruthvi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prudvi Raj Vaddadi @ Pruthvi 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

Dinesh E S Vs State of Karnataka by Kadaba Ps

Sri Manjunatha a Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Rathnamma Vs State by Malur Police

Sri. Sanjay T. D. Vs State of Karnataka

Aruna K Vs the State of Karnataka

Kotresh J Vs the State by