Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sri Pramod Kumar @ Pramod vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Pramod Kumar @ Pramod vs The State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Apr 21, 2025
~6 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1687521

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRL.P/4695/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sri Pramod Kumar @ Pramod

Respondent

The State of Karnataka

Excerpt

.....sessions court in s.c.no.150/2024 was dismissed on 28.08.2024. therefore, they are before this court.5. learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that accused no.3 has been granted regular bail by this courtin crl.p.no.9913/2024. the allegation of stabbing deceased is found in the first information only as against accused no.1. in the statement of eye witness which was recorded after a period of 2 days, for the for the first time, allegation is made that accused no.2 had stabbed -4- deceased on his chest. stab injury caused on abdomen is the cause for death of deceased lokesh. accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.6. learned hcgp has opposed the petition. hesubmits that cws.1 to 15 are the eye witnesses to the incident in question. cw2 is an injured eye witness. all these witnesses have categorically stated about the role played by accused nos.1 and 2 in committing the murder of deceased. accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.7. according to prosecution, cw.1 manjunatha,who is the first informant in the present case is an eye witness to the incident in question. perusal of the first information dated 13.04.2024 would go to show that, allegation of stabbing decease lokesh twice with a knife on his chest is only as against accused no.1 pramod. in the subsequent statement of the first informant which was recorded after 12 days from the date of incident he has made allegation against accused nos.1 and 2 about-5- stabbing deceased with a knife on abdomen and chest respectively.8. the statement of all other eye witnesses havebeen recorded after a delay of two days, in the present case. it is only in the statement of alleged eye witness, allegation is found as against accused no.2 that he stabbed deceased lokesh with a knife on his chest and such an allegation is not found in the first information submitted by an eye witness. deceased had suffered two stab injuries and the said stab injuries are.....

Full Judgment

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4695 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. SRI PRAMOD KUMAR @ PRAMOD @ ARYA S/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/A TEKAL VILLAGE (HOBLI) MALUR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 137.

2. SRI ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL @ MOTA

S/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/A TEKAL VILLAGE (HOBLI) MALUR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 137. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ABHILASH KUMAR M.N, ADV., FOR SRI NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R, ADV.) AND: Digitally signed by NANDINI

MS                 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH     BY MASTI POLICE REPRESENTED
COURT OF           BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

KARNATAKA

HIGH COURT BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE BAIL IN S.C.NO.150/2024 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.68/2024 OF MASTI POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 307, 326 R/W 34 OF IPC NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT KOLAR. -2-

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER

WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

Accused Nos.1 & 2 in S.C.No.150/2024 pending before the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kolar arising out of Crime No.68/2024 registered by Masthi Police Station, Kolar, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 & 326 R/w 34 of IPC are before this Court under Section 439 of IPC seeking regular bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.68/2024 was registered by

Masthi Police Station, Kolar District against the petitioners herein and others initially for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 R/w 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(V) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on the basis of first information dated 13.04.2024 received from Sri Manjunath S/o Muniswamy, who is the alleged eye witness to the incident -3- in question. During the course of investigation, the petitioners herein were arrested on 18.04.2024 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against three persons. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the charge sheet, which is filed for the aforesaid offences.

4. The bail application filed by the petitioner before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in S.C.No.150/2024 was dismissed on 28.08.2024. Therefore, they are before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that accused No.3 has been granted regular bail by this Court

in Crl.P.No.9913/2024. The allegation of stabbing deceased is found in the first information only as against accused No.1. In the statement of eye witness which was recorded after a period of 2 days, for the for the first time, allegation is made that accused No.2 had stabbed -4- deceased on his chest. Stab injury caused on abdomen is the cause for death of deceased Lokesh. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

6. Learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He

submits that CWs.1 to 15 are the eye witnesses to the incident in question. CW2 is an injured eye witness. All these witnesses have categorically stated about the role played by accused Nos.1 and 2 in committing the murder of deceased. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

7. According to prosecution, CW.1 Manjunatha,

who is the first informant in the present case is an eye witness to the incident in question. Perusal of the first information dated 13.04.2024 would go to show that, allegation of stabbing decease Lokesh twice with a knife on his chest is only as against accused No.1 Pramod. In the subsequent statement of the first informant which was recorded after 12 days from the date of incident he has made allegation against accused Nos.1 and 2 about

-5- stabbing deceased with a knife on abdomen and chest respectively.

8. The statement of all other eye witnesses have

been recorded after a delay of two days, in the present case. It is only in the statement of alleged eye witness, allegation is found as against accused No.2 that he stabbed deceased Lokesh with a knife on his chest and such an allegation is not found in the first information submitted by an eye witness. Deceased had suffered two stab injuries and the said stab injuries are found on his chest and abdomen.

9. The postmortem report of deceased would go to

show that, cause of death is due to "hemorrhage shock as a result of injuries sustained to vital organ namely spleen". Therefore, it is apparent that death is as a result of stab injury on the abdomen of deceased, which allegedly is caused by accused Nos.1, who is in custody from 18.04.2024. Insofar as accused No.2 is concerned, in the first information there is no allegation that he has stabbed -6- deceased and the postmortem report would go to show that, death was as a result of stab injury on the abdomen of deceased, which allegedly was caused by accused No.1.

Accused    Nos.1     and    2     do     not    have     any    criminal
antecedents. Under these circumstances,                   I am of the
opinion    that,   the     prayer       made     by     the    petitioner

No.2/accused No.2 for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively while the prayer made by accused No.1 for grant of regular bail needs to be rejected with liberty to renew his bail application, after the alleged eye witnesses are examined before the Trial Court.

10. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

Criminal Petition is partly allowed. Criminal petition is dismissed as against petitioner No.1/accused No.1 with liberty to renew his bail application, after the alleged eye witnesses are examined before the Trial Court. -7- Criminal petition is allowed against petitioner

No.2/accused No.2 and he is directed to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.150/2024 pending before the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kolar arising out of Crime No.68/2024 registered by Masthi Police Station, Kolar, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 & 326 R/w 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

a) Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; b) Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons; c) Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; -8-

d) Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall not involve in similar offences in future; Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial