logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 184 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Karnataka
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 15763 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
Parties : G.S. Dhanush Versus The State Of Karnataka By Kunigal Police Station, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P. Gyarappa, Advocate. For the Respondent: Harish Ganapathy, HCGP.
Date of Judgment : 19-02-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 439 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 KHC 10347,
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This Crl.P is filed under Section 439 Cr.PC (filed under Section 483 BNSS) praying to allow the application under Section 483 of the Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita 2023 and enlarge him on Regular Bail in Crime No.225/2025 in C.C.No.1479/2025, in the pending file of respondent Police of Kunigal the Case stage is ready to committal Trail Court at Tumkur.)

Oral Order

1. This petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No. 225/2025 of Kunigal Police Station registered for offence under Sections 61(2)(a), 238(b), 109(1), 308(5), 137(1)(a), 3(5), 103 of BNS.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent - State.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that accused No.1 has been granted bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.16624/2025 by order dated 28.01.2023. This petitioner -accused No.2 is also similarly placed to that of accused No.1 who has been granted bail. Therefore, the petitioner -accused No.2 is also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The petitioner is in custody since 15.05.2025 and he is not required for further custodial interrogation as charge sheet is filed. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. With this he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra learned HCGP would contend that the alleged act of petitioner and accused No.1 assaulting and killing the deceased has been recorded in CCTV and footage has been seized. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have given supari to kill the deceased and it shows the intention of accused No.1 to kill the deceased. Charge sheet materials show prima facie case against the petitioner for offence alleged against him. With this he prayed to reject the petition.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

6. This Court while granting bail to accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.16624/2025 by order dated 28.01.2026 has observed as under:

          "6. Deceased is father of the petitioner. Petitioner is having a sister. There is an allegation that the deceased was looking at his daughter with sexual intent. It is alleged that the petitioner earlier gave supari to other accused, but, subsequently on the day of incident, he and accused No. 2 went to the factory of deceased and committed his murder. At the time of incident there were exchange of words between petitioner and deceased. At that time deceased assaulted with steel rod on accused No. 1 and at that time, petitioner with a towel pressed the neck of the deceased and at that time accused No. 2 held the deceased tightly. Said aspect indicates that the deceased first assaulted the petitioner.

          7. Entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. CCTV footage which is alleged to contain the recording of the acts of this petitioner and another accused, killing the deceased has been seized. As the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence each of the circumstances have to be proved at the trial. As charge sheet is filed petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner."

          The allegation against accused No.1 is that he along with petitioner went to the factory of the deceased and committed his murder. Considering the same, the petitioner is similarly placed to that of accused No.1 who has been granted bail. As charge sheet is filed, he is not required for custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Considering the above, the petitioner has made out case for grant of bail with conditions.

7. In the result, the following

          ORDER

          i) The petition is allowed.

          ii) The petitioner -accused No.2 is granted bail in Crime No. 225/2025 of Kunigal Police Station subject to following conditions.

          a) The petitioner -accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

          b) The petitioner -accused No.2 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

          c) The petitioner -accused No.2 shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and cooperate for speedy disposal of the case.
 
  CDJLawJournal