Pratheek H @ Prathik Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL U/S 483 OF BNSS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SC NO.5006/2025 (CRIME NO.104/2024) REGISTERED BY KADABA POLICE ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 103(1) AND 238 OF BNS 2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:13821 CRL.P No. 14131 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for grant of regular bail in S.C No.5006/2025 pending on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada arising out of Crime No.104/2024 of respondent-police for the offences under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS 2023’).

¶38

Brief facts of the case:

¶39

The case of the prosecution is that, a complaint came to be registered by the complainant on 02.12.2024 stating that the deceased Sandeep was found missing from his house, and on 27.11.2024 the complainant lodged a complaint. During the course of investigation, the facts of the case has been unfolded in such a way that, the petitioner had obtained loan in the name of the deceased from Bajaj Finance, assuring that he would periodically repay the said amount. However, the accused had failed to keep up his promise, as a result of which, the amount was being deducted from the account of the deceased. Due to this, there were frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused.

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:13821 CRL.P No. 14131 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

It is alleged that on 27.11.2024 with an intention to eliminate the deceased, the accused had hatched a plan to commit his murder. Accordingly, the petitioner had killed the deceased and took the dead body into an isolated place and thrown the same and also caused disappearance of the evidence used for the commission of said offence. The respondent-police after conducting investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

¶44

Heard Sri.Sachin B.S, learned counsel for the

¶45

petitioner and Smt.Asma Kouser, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.

¶46

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Though, there are witnesses to the last seen theory, the motive has not been established. In the meantime, no recovery has been effected at the instance of the accused. The alleged recovery of the dead body is in dispute. Under such circumstances, keeping the accused in judicial custody for a considerable length of time would not serve any purpose.

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13821 CRL.P No. 14131 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

It is further submitted that the petitioner is the earning member of the family and he is a resident of Kadapa Taluk, Dakshina Kannada and he will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submission, the learned counsel for petitioner prays to allow petition.

¶50

Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State vehemently submitted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The dead body was recovered at the instance of the accused. There is strong evidence/circumstance to show that the accused has committed murder of the deceased. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, as prayed for. Making such submissions, the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor prays to reject the petition.

¶51

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties

¶52

and perused the averments of the charge sheet. It would indicate that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The alleged weapon used for the commission of offence has not been recovered at the instance of the accused.

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:13821 CRL.P No. 14131 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Though, the dead body has been identified and it is stated to have been shown by the accused, the fact remains that, since the case is based on circumstantial evidence, it is appropriate to grant bail.

¶57

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶60

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be

¶61

enlarged on bail in S.C No.5006/2025 pending on the file of V Additional District and Sessions

¶62

Judge, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada arising out of Crime No.104/2024 of respondent-police for the offences stated supra, on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶63

(iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶64

7 -

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:13821 CRL.P No. 14131 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the

¶68

Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶69

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.

¶70

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶71

UN

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Pratheek H @ Prathik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratheek H @ Prathik 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

Jaffer Sadiq @ Thimma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadish G Vs Smt Sapna M

Sri Muneesh @ Jogi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Faraz @ Mental Faraz Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Jayappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Venkatesh @ Ledhu Vs the State of Karnataka