Yogesha Vs State by Periyapatna Police Station

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN PERIYAPATNA P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 103(1) OF BNS ACT IN SC.NO.5028/2025, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, MYSURU, SITTING AT HUNSUR.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the sole accused under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant bail in SC No.5028/2025 arising out of Crime No.92/2025 of Periyapatna Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 pending on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru sitting at Hunsur.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for

¶26

respondent/State.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10802 CRL.P No. 15264 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶30

contend that CWs.8, 12, and 13, who are cited as eyewitnesses, have been falsely planted. In the MLC intimation it is stated that the assailants were unknown

¶31

persons. CWs.8, 12 and 13 have not taken any steps to shift the injured to the hospital. The injured has been shifted to the hospital by his brother. On the day of incident itself at 02.45 p.m. the petitioner has been arrested. On perusal of Section 183 of BNSS statement of C.W.13, he is not an eyewitness to the incident. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 06.04.2025 and as charge sheet is filed, he is not required for further custodial interrogation. With this he prayed to allow the petition.

¶32

Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent/State would contend that the incident had been witnessed by CW8, 12 and 13. CW8, in his statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, has specifically stated that this petitioner assaulted the

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10802 CRL.P No. 15264 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

deceased on the head with a club three to four times. The injured was taken for treatment and subsequently succumbed to the injuries on 29.04.2025. The charge sheet materials show a prima case against the petitioner. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

¶37

As per charge sheet, the case of the

¶38

prosecution is that the land of this petitioner is situated near the land of the deceased. The petitioner had constructed his house in his land, and was residing there with family. The deceased was talking with the wife of the petitioner, and they developed close friendship. At that time, the wife of this petitioner left his house and went somewhere. The petitioner thought that the deceased is

¶39

the reason for his wife leaving the house, as he had relationship with her. In that regard, on 06.04.2025 at about 10.00 a.m. when the deceased was returning from

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10802 CRL.P No. 15264 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the land to his house, at that time, he went from his back

¶43

side and assaulted on his head with club three to four times, and he fell down, and he was taken to hospital, and he succumbed to injuries on 29.04.2025.

¶44

In the charge sheet, CWs.8, 12 and 13 have been cited as eyewitnesses. The statement of CW13 has also been recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. On perusal of the said statement, he is not the eyewitness to the incident, and he came subsequently and saw the injured fallen on the spot. The statement of CW8 has been recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. In the said statement, CW8 has specifically stated the act of this petitioner assaulting the deceased with a club on his head, and at that time, CW13 and CW12 coming from their land, and they intimating the brothers of the deceased, who came to the spot in an auto rickshaw and subsequently injured was taken to the hospital in the ambulance. Considering the said aspect, there is a prima face case against the petitioner for the offence alleged against the

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:10802 CRL.P No. 15264 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

petitioner. The offence alleged against the petitioner is a

¶49

heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of him threatening the eye witnesses and other prosecution witnesses.

¶50

Considering the above aspects, the petitioner

¶51

has not made out any grounds for grant of bail.

¶52

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

¶53

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶54

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Yogesha v. State by Periyapatna Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesha v. State by Periyapatna Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreedhara @ Gombe Vs State by Koratagere Ps

Sri Amar Kumar R Vs State of Karnataka

Sandeep, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Tahir Pasha @ Thahir Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Suzanee @ Suzana @ Suzain Vs the State

Anshukumar Vs State of Karnataka