Sri Sathisha Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT DODDABALLAPURA RURAL POLICE TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH THE CRIME NO.0230/2025 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT DODDABALLAPURA RURAL POLICE (ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:25380 CRL.P No. 15690 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 103(1) OF BNS 2023 AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Accused in S.C.No.10009/2026 pending before the

¶30

Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural arising out of Crime No.230/2025 registered by Doddaballapura Rural Police Station, Bengaluru for offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023 is before this Court and this petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail.

¶31

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶32

learned HCGP on behalf of the respondent - State.

¶33

FIR in Crime No.230/2025 was registered by

¶34

the Doddaballapura Rural Police Station, Bengaluru against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offence based on the

¶35

3 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:25380 CRL.P No. 15690 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

first information dated 28.06.2025 received from Ramesh, son of Muniyappa who is deceased in the present case.

¶39

During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 30.06.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against him for the aforesaid offence. His bail application filed before the Trial Court in Criminal Misc. No.10186/2025 was rejected on 24.10.2025. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court.

¶40

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the petitioner and the first informant are the sons of Muniyappa who is the deceased/victim in the present case. It appears that Muniyappa and his wife Rathnamma have four children and all of them are married. Petitioner was residing separately with his wife and children. It appears that there was a dispute between the family members with regard to partition of the joint family property.

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:25380 CRL.P No. 15690 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

On 24.06.2025 petitioner allegedly had

¶45

quarreled with his mother on the background of the property dispute and had assaulted her. When his mother subsequently informed the said incident to her husband

¶46

Muniyappa, the petitioner allegedly quarreled with his father and assaulted him with an instrument which was used for peeling cucumber. As a result, Muniyappa had sustained injury on his forehead and immediately he was taken to hospital for treatment. The alleged incident had taken place on 24.06.2025 at about 08.30 a.m. near the house of Muniyappa. After the incident, he was taken to the hospital for treatment and was later brought back home. Thereafter on 26.06.2025 he was again taken to hospital for treatment, and subsequently he had died in the hospital while undergoing treatment on 28.06.2025. Though incident had taken place on 24.06.2025, first information in the present case was submitted only on 28.06.2025 after the death of Muniyappa. The inordinate delay in submitting the first information before the

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:25380 CRL.P No. 15690 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

jurisdictional police is not properly explained in the present

¶51

case and in view of the property dispute between the family members, the said unexplained delay is of vital importance. Post mortem report of deceased Muniyappa would suggest that death was as a result of internal injury sustained on his head. Petitioner is an agricultural coolie, aged 45 years and is in custody for the last nearly one year. He is a married man having wife and children. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that prayer made by the petitioner needs to be granted. Accordingly, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i) The petition is allowed.

¶54

ii) The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.0230/2025 of Doddaballapura Rural Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023 subject to the following conditions:

¶55

a) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶56

6 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:25380 CRL.P No. 15690 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶60

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶61

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶62

e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶63

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶64

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

Sri Sathisha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sathisha 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

Sri Chand Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sundara Acharya Beluvayi Vs Sri Dhanjaya Palke

Smt. Ritu, Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Musthafa Vs the State of Karnataka

Vamshi Vs State of Karnataka

Mukthar Hussain @ Babu Vs the State of Karnataka