Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Digitally (BY SRI. PRATHEEP.K.C.,ADVOCATE) signed by AND: PAVITHRA N Location: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA High Court REP. BY AREHALLI POLICE STATION of HASSAN DISTRICT Karnataka REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18723 CRL.P No. 2897 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SC.NO.9/2026 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.68/2025 REGISTERED BY AREHALLI P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT HASSAN, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 103(1) OF BNS.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed by the petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.68/2025 filed by the respondent

¶24

Police seeking for regular bail for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( for short BNS ).

¶25

Factual matrix of the case:

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that the mother of the victim had lodged a complaint stating that she had performed the marriage of her daughter with one

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18723 CRL.P No. 2897 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Basavaraj 11 years ago. Out of the said wedlock her daughter had two children. There was a difference of opinion between her daughter and her son-in-law after the birth of two children. Consequently, her daughter was living separately for few years and she was working in Hero Honda bike showroom at Hassan. There, it is alleged that her daughter got acquainted with the petitioner and they were having a illicit relationship for the past four years. The petitioner used to visit the house of the deceased frequently. The petitioner had already married and his wife was staying at Madagatta Village. There were frequent quarrels between the petitioner and the deceased in respect of the said relationship.

¶30

It is further alleged that on 19.08.2025 at about 6.00 p.m., on the pretext of going to the house of the complainant the petitioner called the deceased and both were going to the house of the complainant in the car around 08.30 p.m. It is alleged that the petitioner drove the said care intentionally drove the car into the lake and

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18723 CRL.P No. 2897 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

he jumped out of the car and made the car to drown into the water. Consequently, her daughter had died. Hence the complaint. The respondent - Police after receiving the complaint registered F.I.R. and conducted investigation and submitted the charge-sheet.

¶34

Heard Sri. Pratheep K.C., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Anitha Girish N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

¶35

The submission of learned counsel to the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, due to unavoidable circumstances and as there was dark on the lake bund the car went into the lake. Unfortunately, the petitioner could not rescue the deceased. In fact, the deceased and petitioner were living happily. However, a false case has been registered against the petitioner in order to harass him.

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18723 CRL.P No. 2897 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

It is further submitted that the petitioner is aged about 37 years and he is having a deep root in the society and he has his own family and he has to take care of them. The petitioner will abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submissions learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶39

Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State of Karnataka vehemently submitted that the petitioner had intentionally and deliberately drove the car and drowned the said car into the lake to commit murder of the deceased. There are eye-witnesses to the incident. If, the petitioner is enlarged

¶40

on bail there may be a chances of threatening the prosecution witnesses. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submissions learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State of Karnataka prays to reject the petition.

¶41

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18723 CRL.P No. 2897 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the complaint and also the charge-sheet. It appears from the record that the petitioner was having illicit relationship with the deceased. The complainant is mother of the deceased he has stated in her complaint that there was a strained relationship between the petitioner and her daughter relating to the first marriage of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner did not disclose his first marriage to the deceased. After having learnt that he had married another lady prior to entering into her life, she was quarreling with the petitioner.

¶44

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the entire case is based on the evidence of CW-2, who is said to be the eyewitness to the incident. However, he has not chosen to lodge any complaint before the Jurisdictional - Police immediately after the said incident.

¶45

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18723 CRL.P No. 2897 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Having considering the said aspect, it is appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the

¶48

apprehension of the prosecution.

¶49

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. This Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶52

ii. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on

¶53

bail in Crime No.68/2025 filed by the respondent - Police for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) of the

¶54

BNS, 2023, on executing a personal bond

¶55

for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like sum of the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶56

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

¶57

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:18723 CRL.P No. 2897 of 2026

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

iv. The petitioner shall appear before the Trial

¶60

Court on all hearing dates, without fail.

¶61

v. The petitioner shall not involve in any

¶62

criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶63

In case, if, the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions mentioned above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶64

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶65

NM

Ravi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi v. the 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

Sri Malik Imran @ Imran Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Faizal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sangeetha S Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddaraju S Vs State by Kanakapura Rural

Ameeruddin @ Saddam Vs the State by Udupi Town Police

Aaryan Santhosh Gurikar Vs the State of Karnataka