Mandappa G Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 483 OF BNSS PRAYING TO ORDER TO RELEASE PETITIONER /ACCUSED NO.1 FORM JUDICIAL CUSTODY ON BAIL IN CRIME NO. 353/2025 AGAINST THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 103(1) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT BOMMANAHALLI PS PENDING ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 325 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking for Regular Bail in Crime No.0353/2025 filed by the respondent – Police for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. ( for short BNS ).

¶35

Factual matrix of the case:

¶36

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was the father-in-law of deceased-Pramoda. The said Pramoda was started residing with her husband near Hongasandra and she was going to work in a garment factory. It is stated that she had developed intimacy with one Ramesh, who was working in the same factory as colleague.

¶37

It is further alleged that she had an affair with her father-in-law who is the petitioner in this case. There was a frequent quarrel between her first husband and the deceased Pramoda in respect of she is having illicit relationship with Ramesh. The petitioner herein had given loan of Rs.85,000/- to the deceased Pramoda to get her ornaments released from the pawn broker.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 325 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The petitioner herein in order to convince Smt. Pramoda to live happily with son, went to her house. However, he has noticed that C.W.10 was with said Pramoda in her house. The petitioner being enraged after having seen the C.W.10 who was staying in the house of deceased Pramoda started quarreling with her and warned her that she should come and stay with her husband. The deceased Pramoda insulted the petitioner in front of C.W.10 and chased him away from her house.

¶42

The petitioner was waiting for an opportunity to commit murder. It is further stated that the petitioner was called to the house of Smt. Pramoda stating that nobody was there in the house on the previous date of incident. The petitioner had been to the house of Smt. Pramoda who is his daughter-in-law had dinner with her and thereafter, he had sexual intercourse with her and slept along with her in the said house. After sometime, when the deceased Pramoda was sleeping soundly, he brought knife from the kitchen and killed her. When she resisted, he has put his leg on the chest of the

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 325 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

deceased and confirm that she should be died. Thereafter, he fled away from the spot.

¶46

Based on the said complaint, the respondent - Police registered a case, conducted investigation and submitted the charge-sheet.

¶47

Heard Sri. Rakesh Raj G., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. N. Anitha Girish, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

¶48

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is aged about 67 years and he is a permanent resident of Kanaka Nagar, Bangalore. The name of the petitioner was not found in the F.I.R. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer has falsely implicated his name. None of the witnesses have spoken about the presence of the petitioner at the scene of occurrence. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. He will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of he is released on bail. Making such submissions learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 325 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent vehemently submitted that the petitioner is none other than the father-in-law of the deceased Pramoda. There was an illicit relationship between the said Pramoda and the petitioner. On account of the said illicit relationship and also that the deceased Pramoda being a daughter in law of the petitioner was stated to have affair with CW-10. The petitioner had learnt the said fact and he was not happy.

¶52

It is further submitted that, the Investigating Officer had collected blood stained clothes of the petitioner and it has been proved through FSL that the blood stained found on the clothes of the petitioner is of human origin. The petitioner has to explain as to how such human blood came into contact with the clothes of the petitioner. Such being the fact, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it gives wrong message to the Society at large. Moreover, the petitioner has committed atrocious murder of his daughter-in-law. Therefore, the petition has to be rejected. Making such submissions learned High Court Government Pleader prays to reject the petition.

¶53

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 325 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments of the charge-sheet. Though, the prosecution has categorically stated that the petitioner had committed murder of the deceased–Pramoda, the fact remains that, the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has not been established through any of the witnesses. Moreover, the body of the deceased was found in the house of C.W.10. Without adverting to the merit of the case, considering that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, it is appropriate to grant him bail with 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 on executing a

¶60

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

¶61

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

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 325 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

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

¶65

v. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution

¶66

witnesses.

¶67

In case, if, any of the conditions mentioned above is violated by the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to take appropriate steps for filing of necessary application for cancellation of the bail.

¶68

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶69

NM

Mandappa G v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandappa G 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

Sri Venkataravana M v @ Giri Vs the State of Karnataka

Syed Anees @ Hari Vs the State of Karnataka by

Ankanayaka H S @ Ankappa Vs State by

Mr Ramesh Vs State by

Mr.Parasuram, Vs the State of Karnataka by Vidyanagara Police Station

Punitha @ Kulla Puni Vs the State of Karnataka