Allowed

Gangappa v. State by Manchenahalli Police Station

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2026CRL.P/13048/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to five petitioners (Accused Nos. 2 to 6) in a case involving offences under BNS, 2023. The court noted the dispute was between neighboring families with a prior civil dispute, the FIR was filed four days after the incident, and medical evidence showed only simple injuries. The petitioners undertook to cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners (Accused Nos. 2 to 6) subject to conditions: appearance before IO within 15 days, personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 each with two sureties, regular trial court attendance, no witness tampering, cooperation with investigation, and no future similar offences.

Gangappa Vs State by Manchenahalli Police Station — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:51265 CRL.P No. 13048 of 2026

¶4

CNR: KAHC010582152026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13048 OF 2026

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GANGAPPA S/O KONDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶9

AVALAKONDARAYAPPA, S/O KANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶10

MUNINARAYANAMMA, D/O GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶11

SUMA @ SUMITHRA, D/O AVALAKONDARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶12

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

¶13

RATHNAMMA, W/O AVALAKONDARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT D. PALYA VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR, KARNATAKA – 561 206.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. NAMAN VANKDARI M..,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE BY MANCHENAHALLI POLICE STATION,

¶19

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:51265 CRL.P No. 13048 of 2026

¶22

CNR: KAHC010582152026

¶23

CHIKKABALLAPUR – 561 206 REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001

¶24

…RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA,. HCGP)

¶26

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO RELEASE THE APPLICANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SEC.482 OF BNS 2023 ON FURNISHING PERSONAL BOND AND OR SURETY BONDS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THIS HONBLE COURT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ON SUCH TERMS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Accused Nos.2 to 6 in Crime No.154/2026 registered by

¶31

Manchenalli Police Station, Chikkaballapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 133, 352 and 190 of BNS, 2023, are before this Court in this petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:51265 CRL.P No. 13048 of 2026

¶36

CNR: KAHC010582152026

¶37

FIR in Crime No.154/2026 was registered by Manchenalli Police station, Chikkaballapura, for the aforesaid offences against Raju and petitioners herein based on the first information dated 11.07.2026 received from Chinnappaiah, father of injured victim Adarsh. Apprehending arrest in the case, petitioners had filed Crl.Misc.No.386/2026 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 28.07.2026. Therefore, they are before this Court.

¶38

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that family of the petitioners and family of the first informant are residing in adjacent houses. It appears that they have certain civil dispute and with regard to the same, they had fought against each other even earlier. In respect of the alleged incident that had taken place on 07.07.2026, first information is submitted belatedly on 11.07.2026 by the father of the injured victim alleging that in the incident in question, accused persons had assaulted his son and wife and had caused injuries. The wound certificate of the injured victims made available to the Court by learned HCGP would go to show that injured victims have suffered only simple injuries in the incident

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:51265 CRL.P No. 13048 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

CNR: KAHC010582152026

¶42

in question. The allegation of assaulting on the private part of the injured victim Adarsh is found in the first information against accused No.1, who is already arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Petitioners have undertaken to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶43

The petition is allowed. The respondent - Police or any other police in the State of Karnataka are directed to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest in Crime No.154/2026 registered by Manchenalli Police Station, Chikkaballapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 133, 352 and 190 of BNS, 2023, subject to the following conditions:

¶44

The Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶45

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:51265 CRL.P No. 13048 of 2026

¶48

CNR: KAHC010582152026

¶49

Petitioners shall regularly appear before the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.

¶50

Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and they shall co-operate with the police for investigation and appear before them whenever called upon.

¶51

The petitioners shall not involve in similar offences in future.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶54

DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78

Gangappa v. State by Manchenahalli Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangappa v. State by Manchenahalli Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases