Mr. Appu Gowda L Vs State by Kanakapura Rural Police

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C (U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.149/2025 REGISTERED BY KANAKAPURA RURAL P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 189(2), 191(3), 126(2), 352, 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 238, 49, 190 OF BNS, 2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

This petition is filed by accused No.4 under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarak Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.149/2025 of Kanakapura Rural Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(3), 126(2), 352, 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 238, 49, 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶30

Heard the learned Senior counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State.

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:5851 CRL.P No. 16941 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The learned Senior counsel for petitioner would

¶35

contend that the name of petitioner has not been shown in the complaint/FIR. Even the name of the petitioner has not been shown as accused in the remand applications dated 13.10.2025, 17.10.205 and 23.10.205. The name of the petitioner has been shown as accused No.5 in remand application dated 07.11.2025, wherein there is no overt act against this petitioner assaulting the injured and the deceased. The further statement of CW-1, the injured, was recorded on 29.10.2025, wherein he has specifically stated the overt acts of this petitioner. The statements of CW-2 and CW-3, who are the eyewitnesses to the incident, were recorded on 10.11.2025. Even though CW1 is the injured, he has not stated the name of this petitioner in his complaint filed on 12.10.2025. The delay in recording the statement of CW2 and CW3/eyewitnesses creates doubt regarding the involvement of this petitioner in the alleged crime. The charge sheet has been filed and therefore the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. There

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:5851 CRL.P No. 16941 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶40

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State would contend that the complainant in his further statement dated 29.10.2025 has clearly stated the name of this petitioner and his overt act assaulting the injured and the deceased. CW-2 and CW-3, the eyewitnesses to the incident, have stated the overt acts of this petitioner assaulting the injured and the deceased. The charge sheet materials show a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is threat to the prosecution witnesses. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel, the Court

¶42

has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5851 CRL.P No. 16941 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

As per the charge sheet, the case of the

¶46

prosecution is that accused No.5/the father of the deceased and the complainant had sold the property to accused No.1. The deceased and the injured have questioned the sale of the said property by accused No.5 without their consent. It is alleged that the complainant and the deceased went to the house of accused Nos. 1 to 3, where the incident took place, and that the accused persons assaulted the deceased and the injured. The deceased died on 12.10.2025 in the hospital.

¶47

The complainant is the injured. He has filed the complaint on 12.10.2025. In the averments of the complaint, he has not named this petitioner as one of the persons present on the spot. CW1/complainant has only stated the name of this petitioner in his further statement recorded on 29.10.2025. CW2 and CW3, who are stated to be eye witnesses to the incident, and the Investigating Officer recorded their statements on 10.11.2025 after one month of the incident.

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:5851 CRL.P No. 16941 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner

¶51

would contend that the delay in recording the further statement of complainant and the statement of eyewitnesses create doubt regarding the involvement of this petitioner in the commission of alleged offence. Now the investigation is over. Charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner.

¶52

Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail with conditions.

¶53

In the result, the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i) The petition is allowed.

¶56

ii) The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.149/2025 of Kanakapura Rural Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:5851 CRL.P No. 16941 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

189(2), 191(3), 126(2), 352, 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 238, 49, 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 subject to following conditions.

¶61

a) The petitioner shall voluntarily appear before the jurisdictional Court within fifteen days from this day and execute a bail bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional court.

¶62

b) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶63

c) The petitioner shall attend the Trial Court on all dates hearing unless exempted and cooperate for speedy disposal.

¶64

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶65

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Mr. Appu Gowda L v. State by Kanakapura Rural Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Appu Gowda L v. State by Kanakapura Rural Police

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

Sri Jafar Sadhik @ Jafara Sadik Vs the State by Extension Police Station

Sri. Muniraju. v Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Naveed Vs the State by Hosmane Police Station

Maniraju @ Mani, Vs State of Karnataka by Magadi P.S.

Sri Ranganatha N Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Salim Vs the State of Karnataka