Maruthi H B Vs State of Karnataka

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS 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 ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CR.NO.288/2022 REGISTERED BY THE KYATHASANDRA P.S. NOW PENDING BEFORE THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU IN S.C NO.62/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 302 OF IPC.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:8207 CRL.P No. 16285 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Accused in S.C.No.62/2023 pending before the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, arising out of Crime No.288/2022 registered by Kyathasandra Police Station, Tumakuru, for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

Kyathasandra Police Station, Tumakuru had registered FIR in Crime No.288/2022 against petitioner and another for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, based on the first information dated 08.12.2022 received from Devaraju K.R-CW.1, brother of deceased Narasimhamurthy @ Kumara.

¶23

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8207 CRL.P No. 16285 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

During the course of investigation of the case, petitioner herein was arrested on 09.12.2022 and subsequently, remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court was rejected and therefore, he had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.5611/2023 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.08.2023 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court a fresh after examination of CWs.2 to 6 who are the alleged eye-witnesses is completed before the Trial Court. Subsequently, petitioner had filed fresh bail application before the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.1056/2025 which was rejected on 25.07.2025. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court in this successive bail application.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioner who has no other criminal antecedents is in

¶27

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:8207 CRL.P No. 16285 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

custody for the last more than three years. All the material charge sheet witnesses have been already examined in the present case except CW.5, who has been dropped by the prosecution. He submits that admittedly deceased had illicit relationship with petitioner's wife and inspite of he being advised, he had continued his relationship. Incident-in-question had taken place in a spur of moment after petitioner and deceased had quarreled with each other, in the aforesaid background. Accordingly, he prays to allow this petition.

¶30

Per contra , learned HCGP who has opposed the petition submits that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The deceased had sustained three stab injuries, as a result of assault made by the petitioner. Post mortem report supports the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶31

First information was submitted in the present

¶32

case by CW.1(PW.1)-Devaraju K.R, who is the elder

¶33

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8207 CRL.P No. 16285 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

brother of deceased Narasimhamurthy @ Kumara. In the first information, it is stated that deceased had illicit relationship with Nalina, who is the wife of the petitioner herein and though, he was advised by his family members and well-wishers, he had continued his relationship with Nalina. On the Alleged date of incident i.e., 08.12.2022 at about 07.00 p.m. when deceased was with his friends, petitioner who came there in a motorbike along with his friend Nagesh raised a quarrel with Narasimhamurthy and thereafter, allegedly stabbed him with the knife which he had brought and escaped from the spot with his friend Nagesh, in the bike bearing registration No.KA42-S-0359, in which they had arrived near the spot of crime. Though, the friends of Narasimhamurthy immediately shifted injured Narasimhamurthy to the hospital, while undergoing treatment he had succumbed to the injury sustained by him in the incident-in-question. It is under these circumstances, the FIR was registered against petitioner and Nagesh for the aforesaid offence. After completing investigation, charge sheet is filed only against the

¶36

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:8207 CRL.P No. 16285 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

petitioner for the aforesaid offence. The petitioner who has no other criminal antecedents is in custody for the last more than three years.

¶39

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is the only bread earner of the family, who is required to take care of his wife and children. It is not in dispute that all the material charge sheet witnesses including CW.1 have been examined in the present case as PW.1 to PW.5. Out of the 43 charge sheet witnesses cited in the present case, till date only 11 charge sheet witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court. Therefore, the chances of the trial being completed and the case being disposed of on merits in the near soon is remote.

¶40

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶41

JAVED GULAM NABI SHAIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER - 2024 SCC ONLINE

¶42

SC 1693 in paragraph No.19 has observed as follows:

¶43

7 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:8207 CRL.P No. 16285 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

" 19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."

¶47

The incident-in-question had taken place on

¶48

08.12.2022 in the background of the illicit relationship of deceased with the wife of the petitioner. Even according to the prosecution, though deceased was advised by his relatives and well-wishers, he had continued his relationship with the wife of the petitioner which had led to the fateful incident that had taken place on 08.12.2022. Be that as it may, petitioner who has no other criminal antecedents, is in custody for the last more than three years. Since all the material charge sheet witnesses have been already examined in the present case, there cannot be any apprehension that petitioner is likely to tamper

¶49

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:8207 CRL.P No. 16285 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

with the material charge sheet witnesses. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, more so the period of petitioner's incarceration, I am of the view that without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The Criminal petition is allowed .

¶54

(ii) The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.62/2023 pending before the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, arising out of Crime No.288/2022 registered by Kyathasandra Police Station, Tumakuru, for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶55

a) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶56

9 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:8207 CRL.P No. 16285 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

KVR

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Maruthi H B v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruthi H B v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ravishankar Vs Sri. Manjunath. a

Meera Moideen Vs Sri B S Harish

Murthy. B Vs H. Govindhaiah

Sri N B Seetharamu Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Suneel Kamath Vs Mrs. Radhika Kamath

Sri.N.Madan Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka