Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12737 (KAR)

PRASANNA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/248/2025 · 2025-01-21

Mohammad Nawaz

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2470 CRL.P No. 248 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 248 OF 2025 (438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. PRASANNA S/O KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 2. S.G.VIJAYAKUMARA S/O JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 3. KUMARA.S.G., S/O GOWDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 4. ABHILASHA.S.N., S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 5. SATHISHA.M., S/O MAHADEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 6. RAVIKUMARA.C., S/O CHINDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, ALL ARE R/SUNKATHONNUR VILLAGE, MELUKOTE HOBLI, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2470 CRL.P No. 248 of 2025 PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571438. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY MELUKOTE POLICE STATION, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATI, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL DIRECTING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.142/2024 (FIR NO.48/2024) OF MELUKOTE POLICE STATION, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, FOR THE SECTIONS 189(2), 191(2), 76, 115(2), 118(2), 351(2), 352 R/W 190 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 PENDING BEFORE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., PANDAVAPURA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2470 CRL.P No. 248 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.142/2024 registered at Melukote Police Station, Mandya for offences punishable under Section 189(2), 191(2), 76, 115(2), 118(2), 351(2), 352, 190 of BNS, 2023. 2. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 3. In the complaint lodged by one Ranjitha wife of Sunil, she has alleged that on 29.11.2024 at about 4.30 p.m., she along with her family members had been to the temple. When they were near the temple, three persons came on a DL-8-CAS-0401 Innova Car from Shambunahalli. They pulled her veil and when her father questioned them, they abused him in filthy language and held his collar and assaulted him. When she, her mother and brother tried to intervene, all the accused abused them and one of the accused assaulted her father on his - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2470 CRL.P No. 248 of 2025 head with an iron rod and snatched the gold chain weighing about 30 grams from his neck. Two more accused dragged her near the sugarcane field, kicked on her abdomen, back etc., and snatched the gold chain weighing about 60 grams. Further another accused assaulted her brother Anand and another kicked him. Further they dragged her mother holding her tuft, slapped her etc. 4. Petitioners claim to be innocent. It is contended by the learned counsel that the FIR is registered against unknown persons. Now the police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioners and if they are arrested, they will be put to untold hardship. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the prayer contending that investigation is in progress and if the petitioners are released, they may not cooperate with the investigation and they may threaten the prosecution witnesses. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2470 CRL.P No. 248 of 2025 6. A perusal of the complaint averment goes to show that the complainant and her family members had been to the temple for some puja. Accused have unnecessarily picked up quarrel with the complainant and her family members, abused and assaulted them with iron rod etc., and also snatched the gold chains. Even though the FIR was registered against seven unknown persons, allegations are serious in nature. Grant of anticipatory bail in a case of this nature will give a wrong signal to the society. Hence, petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51