IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11886 OF 2025

(439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. SRI LOKESHA

S/O JAYANNA,

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

R/AT ALUR VILLAGE, HONNAVALLI HOBLI,

TIPTUR TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572217.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ASHOKA T.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Digitally signed by BY HONNAVALLI POLICE STATION,

LAKSHMINARAYANA

MURTHY RAJASHRI TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

Location: HIGH

REPRESENTED BY

COURT OF

KARNATAKA STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BANGALORE - 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY Smt.B PUSHPALATHA, ADDL. SPP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C (U/S

483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SC.NO.10012/2025 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.121/2024 OF RESPONDENT POLICE BY HONNAVALLI P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF 5th ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR, SIT AT TIPTUR, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 103(1) READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BNS.

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 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant bail in Crime No.121/2024 of Honnavalli Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in SC No. 10012/2025 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, sitting at Tiptur.

2. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that, the alleged incident has taken place in a sudden quarrel, and it is not premeditated, and there was no pre-plan. The alleged assault is made by a weapon, which was there on the spot. The deceased himself has started quarrelling with the wife of the petitioner. The deceased was a married man, and he was insisting the petitioner and his wife to give their daughter/CW10 in marriage to him. Therefore, the petitioner and his wife were upset with the same. The petitioner himself after the incident along with the weapon went to police station and surrendered himself. The deceased was drunk at the time of incident, and the same can be seen in the statement of CW2. The petitioner has also sustained three injuries in the incident. There is a delay in recording the statement of CW3/eyewitness. The incident has taken place on 23.11.2024, and the statement of CW3 has been recorded on 03.12.2024. CW2 is not eyewitness to the alleged incident of assault by this petitioner on the deceased. CW2 has seen the earlier quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased on the same day. The petitioner is in judicial custody since last one year, and as charge sheet is filed, he is not required for custodial interrogation. The petitioner is having a wife and a daughter of marriage age, and he has to look after them. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State would contend that, even though the quarrel has taken place under sudden provocation, and not premeditated, but second time the petitioner has assaulted the deceased with weapon on his head, and itself clearly shows the intention of the petitioner to kill the deceased. The post-mortem report indicates that, the deceased has sustained nineteen injuries, and cause of death is due to chop head injuries. The articles seized from the petitioner are blood stained as per FSL report. CW2 and CW3 are eyewitnesses to the incident. The charge sheet materials show the prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. With this, she prayed to reject the petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on