SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35745

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
SRI MAYANNA – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY TUMKURU RURAL POLICE STATION – Respondent
CRL.P 13887/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13887 OF 2025 [(438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS)]

BETWEEN:

1. SRI MAYANNA S/O MAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT: HETTENAHALLI VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU - 572 118.

2. SRI MAGARAJU S/O MAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT: HETTENAHALLI VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU - 572 118.

3. SRI SIDDAPPA H M Digitally signed by S/O MAYANNA, LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, MURTHY RAJA SHRI R/AT: HETTENAHALLI VILLAGE, Location: HIGH COURT OF GULUR HOBLI, KARNATAKA TUMAKURU - 572 118.

4. SRI H M MAHADEVAIAH S/O MAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT: HETTENAHALLI VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU - 572 118.

5. SRI KUSHAL M S/O MAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT: HETTENAHALLI VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU - 572 118.

6. SRI RAVI @ MAYASANDRA @ RAVIKUMAR M N S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT: NEAR POST OFFICE, MARASANDRA VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE.

7. SMT HEMA @ HEMAVATHI W/O MAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT: HETTENAHALLI VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU - 572 118.

8. SMT. RADHA @ RADHAMMA S N W/O H M MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT: HETTENAHALLI VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU - 572 118. 9. SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA H M, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT: HETTENAHALLI VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU - 572 118.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVAMURTHI A R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY TUMKURU RURAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SRI MANJUNATHA S/O AJJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT: HETTENAHALLI VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU - 572 118.

…RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1;

R2 - SERVED (REFUSED V/O. DATED 10.11.2025)]

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 (FILED UNDER SECTION 482 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 9 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THE PETITIONERS BEING APPREHENDED OR ARREST ON THE COMPLIANT AND FIR IN CRIME NO.233/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AND JMFC COURT, TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT TUMAKURU RURAL POLICE STATION FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 189(2), 191(2), 351(2), 352, 115(2), 118, 109 AND 190 OF BNS, 2023 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TUMAKURU RURAL POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 5, 7 to 10 under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.233/2025 of Tumakuru Rural Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 351(2), 352, 115(2), 118, 109 and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State. Notice issued to respondent No.2 is returned with an endorsement as 'refused'.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend that, there was a quarrel between the petitioners and the victims. There was earlier quarrel between accused No.1 and the first informant. In the quarrel, nobody has sustained any injuries. Accused No.10 who is petitioner No.9 has also filed complaint and it came to be registered in Crime No.234/2025 with regard to the same incident dated 09.09.2025 taken place at 07.30 p.m. There is a case and a counter case. The petitioners are ready to cooperate with the police in investigation and abide by any terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. The petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents. With these, he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 would contend that, out of the incident, two complaints have been filed and considering the same, there is a case and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top