Sri Punith vs State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Dec 02, 2025

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1787896

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1787896
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: G Basavaraja
Decided On: Dec 02, 2025
Case Number: CRL.A/2260/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sri Punith

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Excerpt

.....mr. justice g basavarajaoral judgmentappellant/accused no.5 has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the ii additional district and sessions judge, bengaluru rural district, bengaluru in crl.misc. no.1278/2025 dated 22.07.2025.2. brief facts leading to this appeal is that, on thebasis of the complaint filed by padmaraj, suryanagara police, anekal taluk, bengaluru district have registered the case in crime no.109/2024 against the accused no.1- arjun and others -3- for the commission of offences punishable under section 302 of indian penal code, 1860 (for short 'ipc').3. after investigation, the investigation officer hassubmitted the charge sheet against the accused nos.1 to 9 for the commission of offences punishable under sections 302, 201, 120b, 109, 143, 144, 149 of ipc and section 3 clause 2(va) of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989.4. accused no.5 had filed application under section483 of bharatiya nagarik suraksha sanhita/ section 439 of code of criminal procedure for regular bail. same came to be rejected by the trial court. being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.5. learned high court government pleader has filed statement of objection along with a memo. same is taken on record.6. learned counsel for the appellant has produced acopy of the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this court in criminal appeal no.2356/2024 clubbed with criminal appeal -4- no.1916/2024 dated 24.06.2025. in view of the said order, the court has granted bail to the accused nos.3, 6 and 7.7. a perusal of the charge sheet, it is crystal clear thatthe appellant who is accused no.5 has not committed the murder but it is the case of the prosecution that accused nos.3 and 5 have got the deceased to the spot. accused no.3 has already obtained bail. therefore, it is just and proper to release accused no.5 on bail on the principle of parity.8. hence, i proceed to pass the.....

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2260 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)-) BETWEEN: SRI PUNITH S/O JAYARAMU AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT NO.KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT BOMMASANDRA ATTIBELE HOBLI BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562106 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KUMARA K. G., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY SURYANAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562106 Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT REP:SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SRI.PADMARAJU

S/O. LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS MARASOOR VILLAGE INDIRANAGAR KASABA HOBILI BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562106 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) -2- THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)

ACT, 2015 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2025, PASSED BY THE II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU, IN SPL.C.NO.1278/ 2025 AND GRANT BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN CRIME NO.109/2024 OF THE SURYANAGARA POLICE, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT, NOW PENDING IN SPL.C.NO.342/2024 OF THE II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND SPECIAL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201, 120-B, 109, 143, 144, 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Appellant/accused No.5 has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc. No.1278/2025 dated 22.07.2025.

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal is that, on the

basis of the complaint filed by Padmaraj, Suryanagara Police, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District have registered the case in Crime No.109/2024 against the accused No.1- Arjun and others -3- for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

3. After investigation, the Investigation Officer has

submitted the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 9 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 109, 143, 144, 149 of IPC and Section 3 Clause 2(va) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. Accused No.5 had filed application under Section

483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/ Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail. Same came to be rejected by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader has filed statement of objection along with a memo. Same is taken on record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced a

copy of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.2356/2024 clubbed with Criminal Appeal -4- No.1916/2024 dated 24.06.2025. In view of the said order, the Court has granted bail to the accused Nos.3, 6 and 7.

7. A perusal of the charge sheet, it is crystal clear that

the appellant who is accused No.5 has not committed the murder but it is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.3 and 5 have got the deceased to the spot. Accused No.3 has already obtained bail. Therefore, it is just and proper to release accused No.5 on bail on the principle of parity.

8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

(ii) The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail

in Crime No.109/2024 of Suryanagar Police Station, Anekal Taluk Bengaluru District on obtaining a bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The appellant shall not commit similar offence; -5-

(b) The appellant shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

Court as and when required. If in case, the appellant violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2025 Same Parties Sri Punith vs State of Karnataka Same Judge G Basavaraja