Dismissed¶51

Mr. R. Srirama v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2026CRL.P/16433/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.P No. 16433 of 2025; Justice S Rachaiah; decided 05-03-2026. Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS (438 Cr.PC) sought by accused No.1 in Crime No.163/2025, Madhugiri Police Station, Tumakuru, for offences under BNS Sections 85, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352 r/w 3(5). Alleged assault by husband on wife Ranjitha and father-in-law/complainant with iron rod causing bleeding injuries, following disputes over suspected fidelity; panchayat previously held. Court found manner of assault indicative of gravity of offence, a gruesome act; anticipatory bail refused; petition rejected.

What did the court decide?

The manner in which the petitioner assaulted his wife and father-in-law indicates the gravity of the offence; it is a gruesome act committed by the petitioner; hence it is not appropriate to grant him bail.

Mr. R. Srirama Vs State of Karnataka by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13608 CRL.P No. 16433 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16433 OF 2025

¶8

(438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI

¶11

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

MR. R. SRIRAMA S/O RAMANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O KYADIGUNTE VILLAGE, PRASHURAMPURA HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT, CHOWDESHWARI GUDI BEEDHI, MADHUGIRI TOWN, TUMKUR-572132.

¶13

(BY SRI. ANJAN KUMAR C R.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, MADHUGIRI P.S., TUMKUR-572132 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SMT.ASNA KASEV, ADDL. SPP)

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:13608 CRL.P No. 16433 of 2025

¶20

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNNS) PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR NO.0163/2025 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 85, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352 READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BNS REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT/MADHUGIRI POLICE STATION, MADHUGIRI TUMAKURU NOT PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJM, MADHUGIRI.

¶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 petitioner/accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking for anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.163/2025 of Madhugiri Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023.

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that the daughter

¶28

of the complainant had married the accused ten years ago, and she was working as a Staff Nurse in Madhigiri Government Hospital since 2019. The couple had children,

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13608 CRL.P No. 16433 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

and they were residing in a rented house located at Chowdeshwari Gudi Beedhi. There was a difference of opinion between the couple for the first six months. They were fighting with each other. A panchayat was held, and advice was given to both of them to lead proper life. The complainant was residing along with his daughter Madhugiri. The son-in-law of the complainant had been to his native fifteen days ago. Therefore, the complainant and his daughter and grandchildren had been to their native on 10.11.2025. They returned to Madhugiri. After sending his daughter and grandchildren, the complainant went to hotel to bring breakfast. After taking breakfast around about 09.00 a.m., he went to the house and saw that his daughter Ranjitha had sustained beeding injuries to both hands and legs, and she was lying on the floor. The petitioner, after seeing the complainant, started abusing and scolding him. Thereafter, he allegedly assaulted the complainant with iron rod on his hands, legs, and forehead, causing bleeding injuries. Thereafter, he left

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13608 CRL.P No. 16433 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

the place after threatening them with dire consequences. Thereafter, they went to the Government Hospital for treatment. After taking treatment, a complaint came to be lodged before the respondent–police against the petitioner.

¶35

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of alleged offence, he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the daughter of the complainant was working as a Staff Nurse,

¶36

and there was a quarrel in the house between the petitioner and his wife/Ranjitha in connection with illicit relationship with another person. Differences had arisen between the couple. On the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner, being enraged by the conduct of his wife, is stated to have assaulted her. However, he had no intention to commit any harm or injury to her in any manner. The petitioner is the permanent resident of Parusharampura Hobli, Chitradurga District. He will abide

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:13608 CRL.P No. 16433 of 2025

¶38

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the conditions to be imposed by this Court. Making such submission, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶41

Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State vehemently submitted that it is an admitted fact that the injured/Ranjitha is the wife of the petitioner. There was a constant dispute between the petitioner and his wife in respect of suspected fidelity. A panchayat was held, wherein the couple were advised to lead a smooth and harmonious life. However, the petitioner, being a husband, allegedly assaulted his wife and caused bleeding injuries to her hands and legs. He also assaulted the complainant, who is his father-inlaw, with an iron rod and caused bleeding injuries. The manner in which he has committed an offence would indicate that there may be chances of committing not only similar offence, but also, to the extent of committing murder. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail in the interest of the welfare of the witnesses. Making such submission, he prayed to reject the petition.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:13608 CRL.P No. 16433 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the respective

¶46

parties and perused the averments of the complaint.

¶47

It appears that the petitioner had committed

¶48

the alleged offence on suspecting the fidelity of his wife.

¶49

The manner in which he has assaulted his wife and fatherin-law who had sustained severe injuries. The manner of assault certainly would indicate the gravity of the offence. It is a gruesome act committed by the petitioner. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following.

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The petition stands rejected.

¶52

Sd/(S RACHAIAH)

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

bkm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Mr. R. Srirama v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. R. Srirama v. State of Karnataka by

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

Girish Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ravikumar Vs State by Arehalli Police Station

Mantu Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Sakeeb@ Sakeeb @ Panipuri Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Abdul Aseer @ Abdul Asser @ Saddu @ Sadu @ Maya Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nagesh @ Nagappa @ Nagappa, Vs State by Chintamani Town Police