Sri Pradeepa M R Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:26667 CRL.P No. 4590 of 2026

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4590 OF 2026

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PRADEEPA M R, S/O LATE RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MALKONAHALLI VILLAGE, SHEELANERE HOBLI, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571426.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SHRIDHARA K, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY K.R. PETE TOWN POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560001. (BY SRI LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT/STATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN S.C. NO.5088 OF 2023 [CRIME NO.0199/2023 OF K.R. PETE TOWN POLICE STATION] PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATTANA) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354(A), 114, 302, R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:26667 CRL.P No. 4590 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Accused No.1 in S.C.No.5088/2023 pending before the

¶22

Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapattana), arising out of Crime No.199/2023 registered by K.R.Pet Town Police Station, Mandya for offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 114, 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, is before this Court in this successive petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking regular bail.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader on behalf of respondent-State.

¶24

FIR in Crime No.199/2023 was registered by K.R.Pet Town Police Station, Mandya for the aforesaid offences against petitioner and his mother, on the basis of first information dated 05.09.2023 received from Sri Kumara M.K., the brother of deceased Yogesh. During the course of investigation of the said case, the petitioner herein was

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26667 CRL.P No. 4590 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

arrested on 07.09.2023 and remanded to judicial custody. Investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed against 2 persons and the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in the charge sheet.

¶28

The bail application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court was rejected and therefore, he had approached this Court earlier in Crl.P.No.5508/2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.07.2024 with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition after examination of the eye-witnesses is completed before the Trial Court. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed bail application before the Trial Court in S.C.No.5088/2023 which was rejected on 28.01.2026. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the eye-witnesses have been examined in the present case. He submits that C.W.6 who is one of the alleged eye-witness has been given-up by the prosecution. The petitioner who has no other criminal antecedents is in custody since last three years. Learned counsel submits that since eye-witnesses are already examined, there cannot be any apprehension of petitioner

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:26667 CRL.P No. 4590 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

tampering the said eye-witnesses. Considering the progress of the case before the Trial Court, he seeks to grant regular bail.

¶34

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the petition and submits that some of the eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and even the medical evidence is against the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶35

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the house of the deceased and the house of the petitioner herein were situated nearby. In the first information, it is alleged that the petitioner was teasing the sister of the deceased and the first informant. Therefore, the deceased and his family members had warned the petitioner. On 05.09.2023, the petitioner allegedly had teased the sister of the deceased and therefore deceased had gone near the house of the petitioner to question him. In the incident that took place thereafter, the petitioner allegedly stabbed deceased Yogesh with a knife. Immediately thereafter, Yogesh was shifted to hospital but he was declared dead.

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26667 CRL.P No. 4590 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Even in the charge sheet which is filed subsequently after the investigation, allegation found against accused No.1 and 2 are similar. C.W.1 to 7 are the alleged eye-witnesses in the present case. Out of said eye-witnesses, C.W.6 is said to have been given up by the prosecution. C.W.1 to 5 and 7 have been now completely examined before the Trial Court. As on this date prosecution has examined 8 charge sheet witnesses out of 31 charge sheet witnesses cited by them in the present case. Since all the material charge sheet witnesses have been examined, there cannot be any apprehension that the petitioner may tamper with the material prosecution witnesses in the event he is enlarged on bail. P.W.1 was examined in the present case on 04.12.2024. Thereafter, till date only 8 charge sheet witnesses have been examined out of 31 charge sheet witnesses cited in the present case. Therefore, the chances of trial being completed and the case being disposed off on merits in the near future is very remote.

¶39

Undisputedly, the petitioner has no other criminal

¶40

antecedents. In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another-2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 at

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:26667 CRL.P No. 4590 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

paragraph No.19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

¶45

"19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime".

¶46

Under these circumstances, considering the period of the petitioner's incarceration and also the progress of the case before the Trial Court, I am of the opinion that, the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively.

¶47

11. Accordingly, following order:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.5088/2023 pending before the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapattana), arising out of Crime No.199/2023 registered

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:26667 CRL.P No. 4590 of 2026

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

by K.R.Pet Town Police Station, Mandya for offence punishable under Sections 354(A), 114, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶54

a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶55

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶56

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶57

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶58

e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶59

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

GVP-List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Sri Pradeepa M R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pradeepa M R 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Javeed @ Javeed @ Bend Javeed Vs State of Karnataka

Ameer M Vs State by Challakere Police

Syed Muzamil @ Bakery Muzamil Vs the State by

Sri H L Ramakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Vikas M Vs State of Karnataka