Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 13784
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J
SOMARAJU D.P @ DEDLI SOMA @ SOMA @ SOMA S/O PUTTEGOWDA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7997 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Smt. Raksha Keerthana K
For the Respondents: Smt. Rashmi Patel
Bail granted as absence of direct involvement and co-accused released on bail support petitioner's release, emphasizing fairness in liberty.
Headnote:(A) BNS Act, 2023 - Sections 61(2), 103, 109, 118(2) and 3(5) - Bail - Petition for regular bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, following denial of bail by the Sessions Court - Petitioner seeks bail after being arrested based on conspiracy allegations related to a murder - No direct allegations against the petitioner for assaulting the deceased or the injured, coupled with bail granted to co-accused - Court allows bail with conditions including appearance, not threatening witnesses, and marking attendance at police station. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 8)
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - Petitioner should demonstrate no real likelihood of committing further offences, non-allegations in the current case against him and presence of multiple co-accused who have already been granted bail.
Facts of the case:
The FIR was registered on basis of a complaint from the deceased's brother, leading to the arrest of the petitioner and others in a conspiracy for murder. The petitioner's bail was rejected previously citing criminal antecedents.
Findings of Court:
Petitioner allowed bail after assessing the lack of direct allegations, prior bail grants to others, and criminal history being managed.
Issues: Main issues pertained to the nature of allegations against the petitioner, his prior record, and the comparisons with co-accused who were granted bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded there are insufficient grounds to deny bail given the absence of direct involvement in the crime and the need to assess allegations critically and ensure fairness in liberty.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the alleged murder conspiracy and bail context. (Para 1 , 6) |
| 2. court's initial observations on the case material. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments for and against the bail application. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. final decision and rationale for granting bail. (Para 8) |
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused No.5 in SC No.116/2024 pending before the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya District, arising out of Crime No.130/2024 registered by Halagur Police Station, Mandya, for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 103, 109, 118(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023, is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.130/2024 was registered by Halagur Police Station, Mandya, initially for the offences punishable under Sections 103 and 109 of BNS, 2023, against Seven Sanju based on the first information dated 31.07.2024 received from Siddaraju S/o Siddegowda, brother of deceased Kantharaju. During the course of investigation of the case, petitioner herein was arrested on 09.08.2024 and subsequently, remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against five persons. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.5 in the charge sheet. His bail application filed before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in SC No.116/2024 was rejected on 30.05.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner about assaulting the deceased Kantharaju or about assaulting the injured Vinod Kumar (CW2). Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have been already enlarged on bail in the present case. In the earlier criminal cases registered against the petitioner, he is already on bail. Accused No.2, who is arrested in the case is in custody.
Accordingly, she prays to allow the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition on the ground that petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents. She however does not dispute that there is no allegation against him about assaulting the deceased Kantharaju or injured Vinok Kumar (CW2).
6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that accused No.1 Rashmi and CW2 were in love and subsequently, accused No.1 had filed a police complaint against CW2 in Crime No.41/2020 alleging that with an assurance of marrying her, he had sexually abused her. It appears that she also had filed a separate criminal case against him in Crime No.45/2024 before Halaguru Police Station. Accused No.1, who had vengeance against CW2 Vinod Kumar had contacted accused No.3 and had given supari to him to commit the murder of CW2 and in furtherance of such conspiracy, accused No.3 allegedly had contacted his friends accused Nos.2, 4 and 5.
7. On the alleged date of incident, accused Nos.2 and 5 had met CW2 and his friend Kantharaju, who is the deceased in the present case. It is alleged that accused No.2 assaulted CW2 Vinod Kumar with a knife and Kantharaju who was along with Vinod Kumar tried to interfere and at that time, accused No.2 also assaulted Kantharaju and as a result Kantharaju died at the spot. It is under these circumstances, FIR was registered against accused No.2 Sanju @ Nagendra Prasad. CW2 - Vinod Kumar, who is the injured eye witnesses in the present case has not made any allegations against the petitioner about he either assaulting him or his friend Kantharaju, who is the deceased in the present. It is not in dispute that in the other criminal cases registered against the petitioner, he has been enlarged on bail. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have been already enlarged on bail in the present case. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively, subject to appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the following order:-
8. The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in SC No.116/2024 pending before t
