Ranjith Vs State by Hal P.S.

complainant namely Sri. Kamal, has filed a complaint stating that accused No.1 had availed a loan of Rs.1,000/from the son of the complainant, namely Sri. Karthik K. On 30.12.2015 around about 7.00 a.m., accused No.1 instructed Karthik over phone stating that he has to come near Sri Rama Temple situated at Annasandrapalya. When Karthik reached near the said temple, the petitioner herein and others with an intention to commit murder of Karthik assaulted him with hands. The accused no. 1 assaulted Karthik on his left side stomach with a knife and right hand. Thereafter, it is stated that the complainant has received said information that his son was being beaten by Rajesh and others. The complainant went to the spot and took his son and got him admitted to the hospital for treatment. On the following day, a complaint came to be registered against accused. The respondent-Police registered FIR against all the five (05) accused persons.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:14609 CRL.P No. 3184 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Heard Sri. Satish G.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, no overt-act is attributed against the petitioner/accused no. 2. He is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶43

It is further submitted that on reading of the averments of the complaint, it indicates that accused No.1 Rajesh had assaulted the son of the complainant with knife. The name of the petitioner was not found in the FIR or in the complaint, however, the name of the present petitioner has been inserted on the voluntary statement of other accused. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶44

Per Contra , learned High Court Government

¶45

Pleader for respondent vehemently submitted that the

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14609 CRL.P No. 3184 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

allegations made against all the accused persons including the present petitioner. In fact, accused No.1 is the brother of the present petitioner. The petitioner and others had caused severe injuries to the son of the complainant.

¶49

It is further submitted that, if, the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there may be chances of threatening the prosecution witness. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent prays to reject the petition.

¶50

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties

¶51

and perused the averments of the complaint. It appears from the record that five accused persons who are named in the FIR are stated to have assaulted the injured on account of enmity existed between the accused and the injured. However, the name of the present petitioner has been mentioned in the remand application on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No.1.

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14609 CRL.P No. 3184 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Even on reading the averments of the said

¶55

remand application, the overt act of the present petitioner is not so serious as that of accused No.1. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant him by imposing suitable conditions.

¶56

Hence I proceed to pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i. This Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶59

ii. The petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.662/2025 filed by the respondentPolice for the offences punishable under Section 109, 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/with one (01) surety to the like sum of the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶60

iii. The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence till disposal of the present case.

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:14609 CRL.P No. 3184 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

iv. The petitioner shall appear before the Trial

¶65

Court on all hearing dates, without fail.

¶66

v. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶67

In case, if, the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions imposed by this Court stated supra , liberty is reserved to the prosecution to take appropriate steps for

¶68

cancellation of the bail.

¶69

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶70

NM

Ranjith v. State by Hal P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjith v. State by Hal P.S.

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

Smt U R Rukmini Vs State of Karnataka

Areef Vs the State

T. B. Yogesh Vs State of Karnataka by

Sameer Biswakarma Vs State of Karnataka

Bheema @ Bheemanaik Vs State by

K Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka