Sri. Nagesh Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. NAGESH S/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT POLENAHALLI VILLAGE, KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU – 572 127. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.G.TIGADI., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KODIGENAHALLI POLICE REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶12

Digitally signed by REP BY SPP SREEDHARAN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE BANGALORE – 560 001. … RESPONDENT SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High (BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP) Court of Karnataka THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.114/2025 AND C.C.NO.138/2025, REGISTERED BY KODIGENAHALLI POLICE FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 133, 115(2), 103(1), OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DIV.) AND C.J.M COURT, MADHUGIRI.

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:14536 CRL.P No. 1025 of 2026

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.114/2025 filed by the respondent-Police for the offence punishable under Sections 133, 115(2), 103(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

¶20

Brief facts of the case:

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that accused No.2 was working as a Bill Collector in Muddenahalli Grama Panchayat. He went to the house of CW.3 to collect the revenue. CW.3 requested accused No.2 to come on the following day to collect the tax. In the meantime, accused No.2 has noticed that water was flowing unnecessarily from syntax tank. On seeing the said waste of water, accused No.2 tried to remove the tap by humiliating CW.3 that she has no capacity to pay the revenue, however, the

¶22

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14536 CRL.P No. 1025 of 2026

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

water was being wasted from the syntax tank unnecessarily. CW.3 has requested accused No.2 not to remove the tap. During the scuffle, CW.3 fell down and sustained injury on her right hand.

¶25

On the same day, CW.3 informed the said incident to her son-Ananda around about 01.00 p.m. Her son went towards the house of accused No.2 to enquire as to why accused No.2 had assaulted his mother, even CW.3 had also accompanied him. CW.3 and the deceased Ananda went to the house of accused No.2. At that time, the wife of accused No.2 was there in the house. It is alleged that on enquiry about the act of accused No.2 with his wife, accused No.3 who is the wife of accused No.2 had assaulted the said Ananda with slipper, in turn, Ananda had also assaulted accused No.3 with the back side of the chopper. CW.3 consoled the said Ananda and brought him back to her house. Thereafter, the accused No.1 being the son of accused Nos.2 and 3 was unhappy and developed a

¶26

4 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:14536 CRL.P No. 1025 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

grudge about the said incident and he was waiting for an opportunity to eliminate the deceased-Ananda.

¶30

Accordingly, on 10.09.2025-Wednesday morning,

¶31

there was a hot discussion between Ramakrishnaiah and Ananda and thereafter, around about 01.30 p.m., near Polenahalli Bus Stand, Ananda informed the wife of Ramakrishnaiah that her husband abused him. At that time, around 2.00 p.m., the petitioner herein came by a Bolero vehicle in a high speed and dashed Ananda, who was coming on the road from Polenahalli towards P.V.Venkateshappa's shop. Consequently, Ananda fell down and sustained injury on his head, leg and all over the body. Later, he died in the hospital. A complaint came to be registered by the complainant-Malleshappa. Based on the said complaint, the respondent-Police registered a case, conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

¶32

5 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:14536 CRL.P No. 1025 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Heard Sri.V.G.Tigadi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Anitha Girish N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶36

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. In fact, the deceased was in intoxicated mind and when the vehicle was moving, he suddenly rushed towards the vehicle, as a result of which, he has sustained injuries. Mererly because, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the family of the accused, would not sufficient to hold that the petitioner had committed his murder. In fact, it is a road accident, however, it has been coloured as murder. There is no motive to commit the murder of the said deceased. In fact, the accused Nos.2 and 3 have been enlarged on bail by the trial Court. Hence, the petitioner/accused No.1 may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶37

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14536 CRL.P No. 1025 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Per Contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State vehemently submitted that there was a motive to commit the murder of the deceased-Ananda. In fact, a quarrel had been ensured between the accused Nos.2, 3 and the deceased. Accused No.1 being the son of accused Nos.2 and 3 had a grudge to commit the murder of the deceased-Ananda. On the day when the incident had occurred, with an intention to commit murder of Anand, he took his vehicle and drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained head injury and died later in the hospital. The petitioner has committed heinous offence, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submissions learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the respective

¶41

parties. Perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the record that the petitioner is the son of

¶42

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14536 CRL.P No. 1025 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

accused Nos.2 and 3. Accused Nos.2 being a Bill Collector

¶45

had been to the house of CW.3 to collect the revenue. There was a scuffle in the said incident, due to which, CW.3 had sustained injury. Deceased Ananda being the son of CW.3 went to the house of accused No.3 and assaulted her with the back side of machete and caused injuries to her. Accused No.1 being the son of accused Nos.2 and 3, learnt that the deceased Ananda had gone to their house and assaulted his mother.

¶46

Be that as it may on perusal of the averments of the charge sheet, without adverting to the merit of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case to grant him bail.

¶47

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. This Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶50

ii. The petitioner is enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

¶51

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:14536 CRL.P No. 1025 of 2026

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

(Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety to the

¶54

like sum of the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶55

iii. The petitioner shall not commit any similar

¶56

offence till disposal of the present case.

¶57

iv. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all hearing dates.

¶58

v. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶59

In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶60

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶61

NR/-

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Sri. Nagesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nagesh 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

Smt U R Rukmini Vs State of Karnataka

Areef Vs the State

T. B. Yogesh Vs State of Karnataka by

Sameer Biswakarma Vs State of Karnataka

Bheema @ Bheemanaik Vs State by

K Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka