Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18853
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J
SRI HARSHITH G.T. – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY SHO DABASPETE POLICE STATION – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8269 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI VENKATESH C R
For the Respondents: SMT.WAHEEDA.M.M
Bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime and no established motive.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 103(1), 3(5) - Bail Application - The petitioner, accused No.2, sought bail after being remanded to custody for an offence following the death of a first informant post-assault - Court observed lack of direct evidence linking petitioner to the crime, noting his absence in the FIR and lack of motive. (Paras 8, 16)
(B) Bail - Consideration - The court indicated that the absence of criminal antecedents and completion of investigation suggested a prima facie case for bail, especially with eyewitness testimony noted as delayed and lacking clarity on the accused's involvement. (Paras 6, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with a case involving the death of an individual after an alleged assault, where he maintained no intent or motive for the act. He had remained in custody since the arrest.
Findings of Court:
The court recognized the absence of clear evidence tying the petitioner to the assault and viewed the case for bail favorably given the circumstances.
Issues: The court addressed the credibility of eyewitness accounts, the intent of the accused, and the delay in witness statements post-incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling emphasized that without verified motive and direct evidence of involvement, bail should not be denied based solely on delayed witness testimony.
Result: Criminal Petition is allowed; bail granted with conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. registered fir details and initial charges. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments for and against bail. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. incident details leading to the assault. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court's conclusion on the bail request. (Para 16) |
ORAL ORDER
Accused No.2 in Cr.No.5/2025 registered by Dobbespet Police Station, Bengaluru for offences punishable under 103 (1) r/w Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘ BNS ’), 2023 is before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘ BNS S’) 2023 seeking regular bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. First Information Report in Cr.No.5/2025 was registered by Dobbespet Police Station, Bengaluru, initially for offences punishable under Section 118 (1) r/w Section 3 (5) of BNS , 2023 against Vinod and two others, based on the first information dated 14.01.2025 received from Jaikumar, S/o Late Manikyam, who is the deceased in the present case.
4. During the course of investigation, first informant Jaikumar, who was admitted in the hospital had subsequently died on 22.01.2025, thereafter offence punishable under Section 103 (1) of BNS , 2023 was invoked in the present case.
5. Petitioner herein was arrested on 23.01.2025 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against two persons and petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. His bail application filed before the jurisdictional Sessions Court was rejected on
17.05.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioner having no criminal antecedent is in custody from 23.01.2025. Accused persons had no motive or intention to commit the murder of deceased and prays to allow the petition.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the petition. She submits that there are eyewitnesses to the incident in question and accordingly prays to dismiss the petition.
8. First information in the present case was registered based on the statement of Jaikumar, who is the deceased in the present case. Jaikumar, who was admitted in the hospital has stated that on 14.01.2025 at about 9.45 p.m., he had gone to a Bar and Restaurant to consume alcohol and when he was returning from the said Bar and Restaurant after consuming alcohol, three persons all of a sudden confronted him and started assaulting him. Thereafter they took him in a motor bike and assaulted him with a wooden club and as a result, he lost his consciousness. On the next day at about 6.45 a.m., Govindraju – C.W.12 and Balaraju – C.W.13 had shifted him to a hospital for treatment. Amongst the three persons who allegedly had assaulted Jaikumar, he had identified accused No.1 – Vinod and it is under these circumstances FIR was registered against Vinod and two other unknown persons. Jaikumar who was admitted in the hospital had subsequently died in the hospital on
22.01.2025 while undergoing treatment.
9. During the course of investigation, accused No.1 and 2 were arrested on 23.01.2025. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against them.
10. According to the charge sheet allegations, accused No.2/petitioner had a transaction relating to some property with C.W.4 who is the brother-in-law of petitioner herein. C.W.4 Shivakumar was due to pay a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- to accused No.2 and accused No.2 had initiated a Cheque bounce case as against C.W.4 Shivakumar.
11. On 14.01.2025 accused No.2 and his friend accused No.1 had consumed alcohol in a Bar and Restaurant and accused No.2 had returned to his house at about 7.30 p.m. Jaikumar who came near the Bar and Restaurant, allegedly quarreled with accused No.1 Vinod who advised him to go home. Thereafter accused No.2 also came near the Bar and Restaurant at about 10.00 p.m., and even he also advised Jaikumar to go home. Since Jaikumar who had consumed alcohol was shouting
