Dismissed¶10

Ramesh @ Tamil Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2026CRL.P/15891/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court bail refusal; CRL.P No. 15891 of 2025; Section 439 Cr.P.C. / Section 483 BNSS; SC 175/2023, Crime 46/2023 Nyamathi PS Davanagere; murder and chopper assault (ss. 143, 147, 148, 302, 324, 307, 120B, 201, 211/212 r/w 149 IPC); prima facie case from charge sheet; criminal antecedents (six cases); threat to witnesses C.W.45 and others; Basavaraj SLP(Crl.) 5407/2024 (15.07.2024) distinguished; stay of proceedings/trial split-up not a ground for bail; dismissed by Justice Shivashankar Amaranannavar on 19.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet material discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. ¶7

Ramesh @ Tamil Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner - accused No. 1 should be enlarged on bail in SC No. 175/2023 (Crime No. 46/2023 of Nyamathi Police Station, Davanagere) pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

Charge-sheet material discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner has criminal antecedents, being involved in six cases, four of which are in Shivamogga.

¶7

Key takeaways

If bail is granted to the petitioner there would be a threat to the injured witness C.W.45 and the other eyewitnesses to the incident.ratio¶7
The petitioner's voluntary statement indicates that he assaulted the deceased with a long chopper on his face and head; the injured witness's statement indicates his presence on the spot in the car, on the front seat beside the driver.ratio¶7
The Basavaraj decision relied upon by the petitioner does not apply to this case because there is no allegation of the petitioner therein having criminal antecedents.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused - Criminal Petition No. 15891 of 2025 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. / Section 483 BNSS: Accused No. 1 (Ramesh @ Tamil Ramesh) sought bail in SC No. 175/2023 (Crime No. 46/2023, Nyamathi Police Station, Davanagere) pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 324, 307, 120B, 201, 211 read with 149 of IPC. The Court found that charge-sheet material showed a prima facie case against the petitioner; his voluntary statement indicated he assaulted the deceased with a long chopper on his face and head; he had criminal antecedents (six cases, four in Shivamogga); and grant of bail would threaten the injured witness C.W.45 and other eyewitnesses. The Basavaraj decision (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5407/2024 dated 15.07.2024) was distinguished on the ground that no criminal antecedents were alleged against the petitioner therein; non-commencement of the trial, with proceedings stayed qua accused No. 8, was held not to be a ground for bail since a split-up could be sought and the offence is punishable with death or life imprisonment. Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2803 CRL.P No. 15891 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15891 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMESH @ TAMIL RAMESH S/O. SHANMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O. 11TH CROSS, VENKATESHWARANAGAR, HASUDI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK DISTRICT - 577222

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHAKRAVARTHY T S.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NYAMATHI POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE -560001

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. MOHD AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP)

¶17

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 ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN CR.NO.46/2023 IN NYAMATHI P.S. DAVANAGERE AND NOW S.C.NO.175/2023 PENDING BEFORE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AT DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,147,148,302,324,307,120B,201,212 R/W 149 OF IPC.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:2803 CRL.P No. 15891 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶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 petitioner – accused No.

¶25

1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. - 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in SC No. 175/2023 (Crime No. 46/2023 of Nyamathi Police Station, Davanagere) pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 324, 307, 120B, 201, 211 read with 149 of IPC.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional SPP for respondent - State.

¶27

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the eye witness – C.W.45 has not stated any overt act of this petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Even the said C.W.45 has not named the petitioner in his statement recorded by the Police. Another eyewitness C.W.46 in his statement recorded under

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2803 CRL.P No. 15891 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has stated that a person sitting in the front seat of the car assaulted the deceased. Petitioner in his voluntary statement has stated that the door was struck and he could not open the door. There are totally 131 charge sheet witnesses. Charge is not yet framed. Accused No. 8 has filed a criminal petition before this Court wherein there is stay of further proceedings. Learned counsel for petitioner is placing reliance on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basavaraj Vs. State of Karnataka, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5407/2024 dated 15.07.2024 ,

¶31

wherein it is held as under Para 2.

¶32

“2. It is true that the petitioner appears to be the main accused who the fatal injury is attributed. However, we are informed that the trial proceedings have been stayed by the High Court as the petitioner’s brother, who is his coaccused, has filed a petition seeking his discharge. On account of the stay, it seems that the trial is not likely to be concluded very early.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:2803 CRL.P No. 15891 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The prosecution evidence is yet to commence and there are 44 witnesses to be examined.”

¶37

On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶38

Per contra, learned Additional SPP would contend that petitioner is having criminal antecedents and he is involved in 6 cases, out of them, 4 cases are in Shivamogga. There is motive for this petitioner to assault the deceased and the injured. The incident has taken place as there is a vengeance by the petitioner and other accused towards the deceased and the injured as they had committed the murder of one Handi Annappa @ Handi Anni, who was the follower of accused No. 13. Petitioner is also the follower of accused No. 13. C.W.45 is the injured and C.W.46 to C.W.51 are eyewitnesses to the incident. As petitioner is having criminal antecedents if he is granted bail there is threat to C.W.45 - injured and other eyewitnesses to the incident. Charge sheet material shows prima facie case against petitioner. The offence alleged against the petitioner is a heinous offence punishable with

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2803 CRL.P No. 15891 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

either death or imprisonment for life. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

¶42

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

¶43

The deceased Anjaneya and injured Madhu (C.W.45) were accused Nos. 7 and 8 in Crime No. 154/2023 in the case of murder of one Handi Annappa @ Handi Anni. Said Handi Annappa @ Handi Anni was a follower of accused No. 13 and in order to take revenge against them he had informed the same to petitioner - accused No. 1 who is also his follower. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 conspired to kill the deceased. Other accused informed the movements of the deceased and the injured to accused Nos. 1 to 6. When injured and the deceased were moving on their bike, accused No. 16 took his car on left side and made them not to proceed further on the bike. At that time, a Scorpio vehicle came from backside of the said bike and dashed to it. As a result deceased Anjaneya and

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:2803 CRL.P No. 15891 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

injured fell down on the land and Scorpio vehicle went in to the ditch. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 have assaulted deceased Anjaneya with long chopper on his face and head. Thereafter accused Nos. 1 and 6 also came there and assaulted with long chopper on the deceased Anjaneya. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 have assaulted C.W.45 - Madhu with long chopper on his hand, leg and caused injuries.

¶47

Statement of C.W.5 - injured indicates the

¶48

presence of the petitioner on the spot, in the car, on the front seat, besides the driver. Voluntary statement of the petitioner indicates that he assaulted the deceased with a long chopper on his face and head. Charge sheet material show prima facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. Petitioner is having criminal antecedents and involved in six cases, out of them four cases are in Shivamogga. If the petitioner is granted bail there is threat to C.W.45 and other eye witnesses to the incident.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:2803 CRL.P No. 15891 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

In the case on which learned counsel for

¶53

petitioner has placed reliance, there is no allegation of the petitioner therein having criminal antecedents and therefore that decision does not apply to the case on hand.

¶54

If the proceedings are stayed only in respect of accused No. 8 by this Court, petitioner can insist the Court to split up case against accused No. 8 and proceed with other accused. Merely because trial is not commenced is not a ground for grant of bail since offence alleged against the petitioner is a heinous offence punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. Petitioner is also having criminal antecedents.

¶55

Considering the above aspects, petitioner has

¶56

not made out any grounds for grant of bail.

¶57

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

¶58

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶59

LRS

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Ramesh @ Tamil Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh @ Tamil Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.G.Venkataronappa Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Vijaya @ Vijayalaxmi Vs the State - through the Police Sub

Sri.Manjunatha K B Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Aleem @ Aleem Vs State of Karnataka

Gururaj H Vs the State of Karnataka by Holehonnur Ps