Sri Kirana Kumara Y R Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO RELEASE/ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON REGULAR BAIL IN CR.NO.0002/2026 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT ANANDAPURA P.S. PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND C.J.M COURT SAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 126(2) AND 109 OF BNS 2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this

¶27

Court seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime No.2/2026

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14732 CRL.P No. 1461 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

of respondent-police for the offence under Sections 126(2)

¶31

and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶32

Brief facts of the case:

¶33

The case of the prosecution is that, a complaint came to be registered against unknown persons stating that the complainant is the resident of Sagar Taluk. His daughter-in-law by name Shruthi had come to Maskalabailu Village bus stand on 05.01.2026 on finishing her work. The complainant went to the said bus stand to bring her to his house. In the meantime, around about 07.00 p.m., some unknown persons restrained them and thrown chilli powder on the face and assaulted the said Shruthi on her head with iron road and caused injuries. Immediately, the complaint after treating the said Shruthi, he had shifted her to Shivamogga Max Hospital with the help of Yashwanth and Krishnamurthy. Hence, he lodged a complaint.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:14732 CRL.P No. 1461 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Based on the said complaint, the respondentpolice have registered FIR and conducted the investigation. The investigation is under progress.

¶38

Heard Sri.Kashinath J.D., learned counsel for

¶39

the petitioners and Smt.Anith Girish, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶40

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences. The identification parade of the persons who allegedly assaulted the daughter-in-law of the complainant has not been done by the Investigating Officer.

¶41

The manner in which the petitioners have been arrested would create a doubt not only on the genuineness, but also, the information stated to have been received by the police. The petitioners are not at all connected with the case. Therefore, they may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. They will abide the

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:14732 CRL.P No. 1461 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

conditions imposed by this Court in the event of their release on bail. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition.

¶46

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State vehemently submitted that the petitioners have committed heinous offence. The manner in which they assaulted the injured and the complaint would indicate that they had a pre-plan to commit the said offence. As they have committed serious offence, it is not appropriate to grant them bail till the examination of material witnesses. Making such submissions, she prays to reject the petition.

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments made in the complaint and also the remand applications filed along with the petition, it appears from the record that the petitioners are stated to have assaulted one Shruthi when she was going

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14732 CRL.P No. 1461 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

to her house along with the complainant on the motorcycle.

¶51

It is stated that one of the accused had

¶52

assaulted on the head of Shruthi with iron rod and caused injuries. However, their identity has not been proved. In fact, the identification parade has not been conducted to substantiate the identity of the persons who assaulted the injured. In the absence of identification parade, it is not appropriate to conclude that the petitioners have committed the offence.

¶53

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶56

(ii) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2

¶57

are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.2/2026 of respondent-police for the

¶58

offence under Sections 126(2) and 109, on executing personal bond in a sum of

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:14732 CRL.P No. 1461 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each

¶63

with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶64

(iii) The petitioners shall not threaten

¶65

or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶66

(iv) The petitioners shall appear before

¶67

the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶68

(v) The petitioners shall not involve in

¶69

any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶70

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

¶71

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶72

NR/-

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Sri Kirana Kumara Y R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kirana Kumara Y R 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

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