IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16535 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SRI MADHU B H

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,

R/O BETHALURU VILLAGE,

KASABA HOBLI,

TUMAKURU TALUK,

TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572138 (NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. H L JAYARAMU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY TUMAKURU RURAL P.S.,

BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

BENGALURU - 560 001

…RESPONDENT

Digitally signed (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)

by PRASHANTH

N V

Location: H igh THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS)

Court of

Karnataka PRAYING TO ORDER FOR RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN

CRIME NO.394/2023 (SC NO.68/2024) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 324, 504, 506, 302 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 27 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE

II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU.

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER

WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.394/2023 of Tumakuru Police Station, pending in S.C.No.68/2024, on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506, 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Section 27 of Indian Arms Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Rubin.

2. Heard Sri. H.L. Jayaramu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

R E A S O N S

4. The petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 27.12.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody. The informant lodged the first information making specific allegations regarding commission of the offence by accused Nos. 1 and 2. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. As per charge sheet, CWs-1 to 5 are the eye-

witnesses and CW-1 is the injured eye-witness.

5. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that, accused No.1 was having dispute with CW-13, CW-26 and the deceased regarding the landed property. On the date of incident, when the deceased was proceeding along with CW-1, accused Nos. 1 and 2 approached them, picked up quarrel and assaulted the deceased with a dragger. When CW-1 tried to intervene in the matter, he was also assaulted. As a result of which, he sustained injuries. Accused No.1 assaulted the deceased after chasing him, while accused No.2 was holding him. When the injured was taken to the hospital, he was declared brought dead.

6. It is stated that the statements of the eye-

witnesses CW-1 to 5 were recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.PC. Even though post mortem report is not produced by either parties, the allegations made in the charge sheet discloses that, multiple injuries were caused to the deceased as a result of assault with dragger, which resulted in his death. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that, the wife of the deceased lodged another complaint against these accused stating that, she and other eye-witnesses are being threatened by the accused giving life threat.

7. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.14223/2024. The said petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2025 reserving liberty to the petitioner to move the Trial Court for grant of bail, after examination of the material witnesses. Now it is stated that PWs.1 to 5 are already examined.

8. Learned HCGP drawn the attention of the Court to the sta