Sri Karthik K N. Vs State of Karnataka

SRI KARTHIK K N. S/O K NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO. 128, 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, RAMACHANDRAPPA LAYOUT, ELE KODIGEHALLI POST, BENGALURU 560 091.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI K GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.NEHRU., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY JNANABHARATHI P S BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. N ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO GRANT HIM BAIL IN CRIME NO.461/2025, JNANABHARATHI P.S., FOR THE ALLEGED

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13990 CRL.P No. 16927 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 103(1), OF BNS, 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for

¶25

regular bail in CC No.5197/2026 arising out of Crime No.461/2025 of Jnanabharathi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 49, 54, 238, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending on the file of the learned VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant was running a hotel by name Lavanya Tiffen Center at Byadarahalli, Bengaluru. Her parents had four children. She was living with her family at Elekodigehalli in a house constructed by them. Her elder sister has three children. The deceased - Avinash, was the third son of her

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:13990 CRL.P No. 16927 of 2025

¶28

3 -

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

elder sister. Around thirty years ago, the deceased - Avinash, came to Bengaluru for work and had been residing at different places in Bengaluru. He married Sunitha, and he had two children.

¶31

It is stated that due to difference of opinion

¶32

between the husband and wife, the deceased - Avinash had left his wife, and the children are residing in a rented house. The petitioner herein and his mother, Sumangala are also residing in the same building. The deceased - Avinash, used to visit the house of Sumangala and he was staying there often along with Sumangala. The complainant had sold the house of which Avinash and Sumangala and others were staying as tenants.

¶33

On 27.10.2025, around about 11.30 a.m., she

¶34

went to the house and asked Sumangala to vacate the same, as she had to hand over vacant possession to the purchaser. At that time, she has noticed that Avinash was sleeping in the room. On 28.10.2025, at about 5.45 a.m.,

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:13990 CRL.P No. 16927 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

she received a message stating that the petitioner herein

¶39

had killed the said Avinash in the house with an iron rod.

¶40

On receiving the said information, the

¶41

complainant, along with her daughter, went to the place of incident and saw the dead body and also noticed injuries on his head and other parts of the body.

¶42

The complainant was told that Avinash came to

¶43

the house of Sumangala in an intoxicated state and picked up a quarrel with the said Sumangala and asked her to be stayed with him as his wife. The said Sumangala, being annoyed of the strange offer, asked him go out of her house, as the deceased was not in a position to go out from the said place, hence, she had informed the petitioner who is her son.

¶44

The petitioner came to the house and picked up

¶45

a quarrel with the deceased and killed him. Hence, the compliant.

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13990 CRL.P No. 16927 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Based on the complaint, the respondent police

¶49

have registered a case against the petitioner and conducted investigation. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted.

¶50

The submission of the learned counsel for the

¶51

petitioner is that the petitioner is an innocent of the alleged offence, the offence has been committed due to sudden provocation. The intention to commit a murder of the deceased was not there.

¶52

It is further submitted that when the deceased was insisting the mother of the petitioner to stay with him as his wife and attempted to force her to have sex, and also teasing her, he has to use the force to avoid further complications.

¶53

It is further stated that the petitioner is the only son of Sumangala and also earning member of the family. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions which would take care of the

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13990 CRL.P No. 16927 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

apprehension of the prosecution. Making such submission, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶57

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State vehemently submits that there are eye-witnesses to the incident. No doubt, the incident had occurred in the house of accused No.2 and the petitioner. The petitioner had an intention to commit murder and he used iron rod and assaulted on the vital part of the body. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submissions, he prayed to reject the petition.

¶58

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the charge sheet, it would indicate that the deceased was residing in a rented house and used to visit the house of accused No.2 and the petitioner. On the date of alleged incident, he was in an intoxicated mind and went to the house of accused No.2 and tried to molest her. Immediately, she called the

¶59

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13990 CRL.P No. 16927 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

petitioner and narrated the incident. The petitioner, who is the son of accused No.2, being enraged, rushed to the spot, tried to pacify it. However, it appears that the deceased was in an intoxicated state of mind.

¶62

It appears that the incident occurred due to sudden provocation. Hence it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶63

In light of the above observation, I proceed to pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i) The petition is allowed.

¶66

ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.461/2025 of Jnanabharathi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 49, 54, 238, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending on the file of the learned VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, on executing personal bond for a

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:13990 CRL.P No. 16927 of 2025

¶68

8 -

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶71

(iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Trial Court.

¶72

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

¶73

(v) The petitioner shall not involve in

¶74

any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶75

In case, the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file a necessary application for cancellation of bail granted to him.

¶76

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶77

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sri Karthik K N. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Karthik K N. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

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

Thimmanna Vs State of Karnataka by

Prashanth Alias Pacchi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Muniswamy Vs the State of Karnataka