IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11255 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. SHRI DEVENDRAPPA S/O KUMBALURU BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O NO.231, HARALAHALLI VILLAGE, TALUKA HARIHARA, DISTRICT DAVANGERE - 577 230.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALEBENNUR POLICE STATION, MALEBENNUR, DISTRICT DAVANGERE, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Digitally signed by HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI BENGALURU - 560 001.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. BEERESH S/O. GIDNI BHARAMAPPA, R/AT HALIVANA VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE - 577 230 (AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.11.2025)

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PUSHPALATHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI. SUNIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANTING HIM BAIL IN MALEBENNUR P.S CR.NO.67/2025 (SPECIAL CASE NO.165/2025) FOR THE O/P/U/S 85,352,351(2),115(2),118(1),103(2) AND 3(5) OF BNS, 2023 SECTIONS 9 AND 11 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006, SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 6 OF D.P ACT, 1961 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, DAVANGERE.

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 No.1 under Section

483 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to grant bail in Crime No.67/2025 of Malebennur Police Station, Harihara, Davanagere Pending in Special Case No.165/2025 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, at Davanagere, registered for offences punishable under Sections 85, 352, 351(2), 115(2), 118(1), 103(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 9 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Section 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that CW13 and CW20, even though cited as eyewitness to the incident, they have not seen the incident which took place at 7.00 p.m. as alleged in the charge sheet. CW10 is the son of the petitioner and the deceased, who is stated to be eyewitness to the incident and there is a delay in recording his statement. There is a doubt regarding he being eyewitness to the incident. In the inquest, there is no mention of any eyewitness to the incident. Even though eight injuries are mentioned in P.M. Report and the death is due to strangulation, but Tracheal passage is shown to be clear. The statement of accused No.1 indicates that in a spur of moment, due to instigation by the deceased, the incident has taken place. The petitioner is having two children, one aged about 6 years and another aged about 2 years and they are dependent on him. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.

4. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would contend that, CW10, who is the son of the petitioner and the deceased is eye witness to the incident and his statement is also recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherein he has clearly stated that the overtacts of the petitioner, assaulting and strangulating the deceased. P.M. Report indicates that the injuries over the dead body of the deceased corresponds to acts of accused stated in the statements of CW10, 13 and 20. The final opinion of the doctor who conducted P.M. Report indicates that death is due to strangula