Allowed

Thimmanna v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2026CRL.P/16680/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail in a case where a death was alleged to result from an assault. The court relied on a medical report indicating the death was due to a heart attack rather than homicidal assault.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 137/2025 on personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety.

Thimmanna Vs State of Karnataka by — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:13991 CRL.P No. 16680 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16680 OF 2025 (438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THIMMANNA, S/O MUDLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

¶10

GIRISH B T S/O THIMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶11

KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUDLAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶12

KARIYAMMA, W/O ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶13

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

JYOTHI W/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶16

SHIVANNA S/O MUDLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶17

PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 6 ARE ALL RESIDING AT SAME ADDRESS R/AT BRAHMASANDRA VILLAGE, GOWADAGERE HOBLI, CHANGAVARA POST, SIRA TALUK, PIN 572135.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:13991 CRL.P No. 16680 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

AND:

¶24

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

¶25

BY PATANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION SIRA TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT, BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-01.

¶26

…RESPONDENT

¶27

(BY SRI.RANGASWAMY R, HCGP)

¶28

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECDTION 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.137/2025 OF RESPONDENT PATANAYAKANAHALLI P.S. AGAINST THE ABOVE NAMED PETITIONERS, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 103, 115(2), 352, R/W 3(5) OF BNS, 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:13991 CRL.P No. 16680 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for anticipatory bail in Crime No.137/2025 of

¶36

respondent/police for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 115(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending on the file of the learned 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru.

¶37

Brief facts of the case:

¶38

The case of the prosecution is that the

¶39

complaint filed by the complainant stating that the complainant is the resident of Badamanganahatti village, Gowdagere Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakru. On 30.10.2025 around 05.30 p.m., her husband, Eranna, had gone to her daughter's house situated at Brahmasandra Gollarhatti village. Around 10.30 p.m., her father-in-law, Devaraj, had called her and told that around 07.30 p.m, the mother of the complainant and others took a tractor to their land at Bevinahalli bearing Sy.No.439, and they tried

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13991 CRL.P No. 16680 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

to plough the land. It is further stated that the accused/petitioners herein came to stop the said ploughing, and they were assaulting each other. In the said incident, her husband had sustained injuries and he was shifted to hospital. On receiving the said information, she went to the hospital at Sira, and saw that her husband was dead. Hence, she lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein.

¶43

On the basis of the said information, the respondent/police have registered a case in Crime No.167/2024 for the aforesaid offences.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences. Though it is alleged that they had assaulted the deceased, in fact, there was a reciprocal assault between the parties arising out of a civil dispute existing between them and cases have been registered against both sides. The post mortem report would indicate that the deceased died due

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13991 CRL.P No. 16680 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

to heart attack. Such being the fact, the petitioners may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions, and they will abide the conditions to be imposed by this Court in the event of their release on bail. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition.

¶48

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State vehemently submitted that no doubt, the incident had occurred in the said land. The petitioners herein had assaulted the deceased and others.

¶49

The death had occurred due to the said assault. However, the medical report would indicate that he had suffered acute myocardial infarction. The offence committed by the petitioners is very serious in nature. They are seeking for anticipatory bail. If anticipatory bail is granted, it would send a wrong message to the public and society at large. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition.

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13991 CRL.P No. 16680 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the complaint and other documents available along with the petition, no doubt, there are eyewitnesses to the incident. As per the version of the eyewitnesses, the reciprocal abuses and assault had taken place among the parties, and also the death had occurred in the said incident. However, on perusal of the medical report, it would indicate that the death is due to heart attack. Even the death has not been considered as homicidal in nature. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i) The petition is allowed.

¶55

ii) The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.137/2025 of respondent/police for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 115(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending on the file of the learned 1^st Additional District

¶56

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13991 CRL.P No. 16680 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru, on executing their personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶59

iii) The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional police within a period of one month from today to execute personal bond and also to furnish surety.

¶60

iv) The petitioners shall co-operate with investigation till filing of the charge sheet.

¶61

v) The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶62

iv) The petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶63

vi) The petitioners shall not commit any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶64

In case, the petitioners violate any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:13991 CRL.P No. 16680 of 2025

¶66

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of

¶69

bail.

¶70

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶71

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Thimmanna v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thimmanna v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thota Naika Vs State of Karnataka by Tarikere

Mr. Akbar Salam Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Madesha @ Bande Madesha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Karthik K N. Vs State of Karnataka

Prashanth Alias Pacchi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Muniswamy Vs the State of Karnataka