IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 17411 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /

483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. IRFAN @ KHALEEL UR REHMAN S/O KHAZI SYED GHOUSE AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: TIMBER MERCHANT R/O SJM EXTENSION OPP: SJM COLLEGE, HOSADURGA TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI IQBAL AHMED KHAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOSADURGA POLICE Digitally signed by REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJA SHRI HIGH COURT BUILDING – 01.

Location: HIGH …RESPONDENT COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI MOHD. AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER CR.No.364/2025 HOSADURGA POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 329(4),103(1),115(2),74,54 R/W SECTION 3(5) OF BNS ACT AND SECTION C.C.No.1667/2025.

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 the petitioner –accused No.1 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.364/2025 of Hosadurga Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 103(1), 115(2), 74, 54 read with 190 of BNS.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP for the respondent -State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the deceased is brother-in-law of this petitioner and brother of his wife. He further submitted that the deceased was addicted to alcohol and therefore, his wife left him and he was troubling accused persons to give money etc,. Enraged by that there was quarrel and in that quarrel the alleged incident has taken place. There is no motive or preparation to commit the murder of the deceased. The petitioner and other accused who went to the house of the deceased were not armed with any weapon. They alleged scissor with which the petitioner stated to have assaulted was taken in the house of the deceased and it has been used. C.W.3 to 19 who are students who are playing cricket are stated to be eye witnesses to the incident. The house in which the incident has taken place is situated in the first floor and it is not visible to the boys who are playing cricket in the ground and therefore they are not eye witnesses to the incident. The alleged incident has taken place in sudden provocation and at the most offence which is attracted in Section 103 of BNS which is provided with the maximum sentence of imprisonment for 10 years. The petitioner is having a wife and son. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. with these, he prays to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned Additional SPP for the respondent –State would contend that the deceased is the brother of accused No.3 and brother-in-law of this petitioner. Accused No.3, who is wife of this petitioner has instigated this petitioner and due to that all the accused went to the house of the deceased and this petitioner assaulted the deceased with scissor and caused his death. The post mortem report indicates that the cause of death is due to neurogenic shock secondary to multiple injuries. The assault is made on the chest and left eye. The charge sheet materials show prima face case against the petitioner. C.W.1 -complainant who is the mother of the deceased is also eye witness to the incident. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is threat to prosecution witnesses. With these, he prays to reject the petition. 5. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

6. The deceased is the brother of accused No.3. Accused No.3 is the wife of this petitioner. Accused No.2 is the son of this petitioner. The deceased has asked accused No.3 to give money to him to go to Court to figh