Sri Malavaiah Vs State by Channapatna Rural Police Station

STATE BY CHANNAPATNA RURAL POLICE STATION CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED UNDER SECTION 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED BY GRANTING BAIL IN S.C.NO.62/2024 IN CRIME NO.53/2024 OF CHANNAPATNA RURAL POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:4050 CRL.P No. 16536 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 AND 307 OF IPC.

¶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 sole accused under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant bail in S.C.No.62/2024 (Crime No.53/2024 of Channapatna Rural Police Station), registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, pending on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramangara Disrtrict.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.

¶26

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend

¶27

that, the incident has place on 6:15 p.m. on 08.03.2024

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4050 CRL.P No. 16536 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

and on the same day, the typed complaint has been filed at 08.30 p.m. The complainant before filing the complaint went to the hospital and after keeping the dead body in mortuary, she came to Police Station and filed a complaint. The spot of the incident is at a distance of eight (8) kms. from the Police Station. Therefore, it is not possible for the complainant to file typed complaint within such a short span of time. C.W.2 who is stated has sustained injury is simple in nature. C.W.15 to 23 who are eye witnesses to the incident are all relatives of the deceased and there was vengeance by them against the petitioner. C.W.1 who is the wife of deceased and also eye witness to the incident and C.W.2 who is the mother of deceased and she is injured in the incident. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 09.03.2024 and the case is now fixed for trial. With these, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:4050 CRL.P No. 16536 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Per contra, learned High Court Government

¶34

Pleader for respondent would contend that, C.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and she is the eye witness. C.W.2 is the mother of the deceased and she has sustained injury at the time of incident as the petitioner has assaulted her when she went to rescue the deceased. The postmortem report indicates that the death is due to injury to face and chest. C.W.15 to 23 are eyewitnesses to the incident. The knife has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The charge sheet materials show that, there is a primafacie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses. With these, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

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

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4050 CRL.P No. 16536 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The case of the prosecution as per charge sheet

¶39

is that, there was difference of opinion with regard to performing the last rites of one Smt. Malavamma, the relative of petitioner and the deceased. With regard to the said difference and quarrel, the petitioner stated to have taken the knife, went to the house of deceased and made him to fall on the wood heap and assaulted him with knife on his chest, face and he sustained severe injury. At that time C.W.2 - the mother of the deceased came to rescue him and this petitioner has assaulted her with a knife and she escaped and the said assault caused injury to her left hand. The deceased died on the way to hospital.

¶40

The incident has taken place at 06.15 p.m. on 08.03.2024 and the complaint has been filed on the same day at 08.30 p.m. Merely because the typed complaint has been filed within a short span of time, the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted. C.W.2 is the injured and she is the mother of the deceased. C.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. Both were present on the spot at the time of

¶41

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:4050 CRL.P No. 16536 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the incident. They have seen the petitioner assaulting the deceased with knife on his chest, face etc. C.W.15 to 23 are the other eyewitnesses to the incident. Merely because all the eyewitnesses are relatives of the deceased, the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted. The said aspect can be considered at the trial. The postmortem report indicates that, the cause of death is due to injury to face and chest. The knife has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is a threat to prosecution witnesses.

¶44

Considering all the above aspects, the petitioner

¶45

has not made out any grounds for grant of bail. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed .

¶46

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶47

KLV

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri Malavaiah v. State by Channapatna Rural Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Malavaiah v. State by Channapatna Rural 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

Sunil Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramachandrappa Vs State of Karnataka

Vishnuvardhan Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Nishanth S Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishwanatha @ Vishwa, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R Shailesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka