IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13300 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /

483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. PRASHANTH ALIAS PACCHI S/O LATE. NATARAJAN. R, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O NO.25-23-1442, MR LANE, JEPPU BAPPAL, NANDIGUDA, 1^ST CROSS, Dig itally MANGALORE, PO KANKANADY, signed by SREEDHARAN DIST. DAKSHINA KANNADA, BANGALORE SUSHMA KARNATAKA-575002.

LAKSHMI Location: High Court of …PETITIONER Karnataka (BY SRI. SHREYAS NARAHARI, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.BINDU S.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANTGASWAMY R, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.1) ON BAIL IN THE CR.NO.197/2010 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR UNDER SECTIONS 143, 341, 324, 307, 506(B), READ WITH SECTION 149 OF THE IPC, 1860 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE XLVI, ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU. (CCH-67).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is moved seeking for regular bail in Crime No.197/2010 of respondent/Police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 324, 307, 506(B) read with Section 149 of IPC, 180.

The brief facts of the case

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Mohamad Anif, s/o Bava lodged a complaint stating that in the midnight around 12.00, he was standing outside of his hotel. The petitioner and others threatened the complainant, and assaulted him with knife and attempted to commit murder. When the brother of the complainant and hotel employees tried to rescue the petitioner, the petitioner and other accused assaulted them and also caused bleeding injuries. A case came to be registered against the petitioner and other accused.

3. Based on the said complaint, the respondent/police registered a case, conducted investigation and submitted a charge sheet.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a split up case was registered against the petitioner in SC No.193/2025, and he was arrested on 30.06.2025 under NBW. The petitioner was suffering from mental and physical problem, he is a Neuro - psychiatric patient, he was taking regular treatment and his mental condition is not stable. Moreover, his mother is having old age ailment, and she has to undergo surgery. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would undertake to appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail. It is further stated that due to unavoidable circumstances and communication gap between the petitioner and his Advocate, he was not informed about the hearing date. The absence before the Trial Court was bonafide and not an intentional. Hence, he prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions, and he would abide by the conditions in the event of his release on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State vehemently submits that though the matter is of the year 2010, the petitioner remained absent and split up case has been registered against him. He has been secured through warrant, even proclamation had also been issued against him. Such being the fact, in case, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there may be chances of absconding again, and moreover, his mental status is not in good position. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submission, he prayed to reject the petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the charge sheet averments made available along with the petition, no doubt, the incident had occurred in the year 2010. It is alleged that the petitioner and others had assaulted the complainant and caused severe bleeding injuries. As per the