Pratheek R vs State Of Karnataka

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J

CAV ORDER

This petition is filed by the sole accused under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in S.C.No.1076/2025 arising out of Crime No.184/2025 of Subramanyapura Police Station registered for offences punishable under Section 109 and 103(1) of BNS pending on the file of LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP-II along with High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the alleged incident has taken place in road rage. The injury caused to the injured is to his head as he dashed to the shutter of shop. There was no any premeditation on the part of the petitioner. The incident occurred in a spur of moment, out of anger and there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to kill the deceased. The statement of wife of the accused indicates that it is an accident. C.W.1 is stated to be lady running tea shop and she is stated to be eye witness to the incident. In her statement she has stated that bike came first. There is contradiction in her statement recorded by the police and recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. The petitioner is an employee in a multinational company. He is aged 42 years having wife and she is dependent on him. There are 57 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. Considering the said, the completion of trial will take a long time. The petitioner undertakes not to tamper the prosecution witnesses and attend the Court regularly. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and grant bail to the petitioner.

Per contra learned SPP –II along with Sri Channappa Irappa, High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State would contend in the first information, the incident has been narrated. C.W.3 is an eye witness to the incident and she was running a tea stall on the spot. Her statement has been recorded by the police and also under Section 183 of BNSS, wherein she has specifically stated the details of the alleged incident and acts of the petitioner. Mere discrepancy in her statements does not go to the root of the case. The brother of the petitioner namely –Hrithik and also Rahul in their statement have not stated regarding this petitioner intimating them about the incident who came to the spot immediately after the incident. The spot mahazar indicate that there is damage to the shutters and two-wheeler of the deceased. Small cigarette in hand by the petitioner to the deceased led to quarrel and took the life of the deceased. The CCTV camera fixed near the spot has been seized under mahazar. Charge sheet materials show prima facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. If the petitioner is granted bail there are chances of he tampering the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With these, they pray to reject the petition.

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused charge sheet and other materials placed on the record.

The case of prosecution as per charge sheet is that deceased and C.W.1 on 10.05.2025 at about 03.30a.m. came out of the house to have snacks and went on their bike. At about 04.10 a.m. they were drinking tea in the tea stall of C.W.3. At that time, the accused and his wife were in the Hyundai Creta car and petitioner –accused asked C.W.1 to bring him a cigarette and he told that it is not his shop and shop belongs to lady and he can get cigarette from her. At that time, the petitioner -accused stated to have abused him in filthy language and C.W.3 came and pacified them and the petitioner -accused went and sat inside car. Thereafter, also there was quarrel between C.W.1, deceased and accused. Thereafter, the deceased and C.W.1 were moving on their bike. The petitioner dashed his car to the bike of the deceased and C.W.1. As a result, the deceased fell down and his head touched the rolling shelters of medical store and he fell on the footpath and C.W.1 due to the force fell on the bonnet of the car and sustained small injuries and he took the deceased and went to the hospital. He was in coma and died on 13.05.2025. Considering the said case of prosecution, the incident has taken place in a spur of moment in quarrel and it was not premeditated. Whether the petitioner had intention to kill the deceased or not can be ascertained in the trial. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.05.2025 and as the charge sheet is filed, he is not required for custodial interrogation. The petitioner is having wife who is dependent on him. The petitioner has undertaken not to tamper the prosecution witnesses and attend the trial Court. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail with conditions.

In the result, the following

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed.

ii) The petitioner is granted bail in S.C.No.1076/2025 arising out of Crime No.184/2025 of Subramanyapura Police Station registered for offences punishable under Section 109 and 103(1) of BNS pending on the file of LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru subject to following conditions:

a) The petitioner -accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

b) The petitioner -accused shall not tamper the prosecution with either directly or indirectly.

c) The petitioner -accused shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate for speedy disposal of the case.

d) The petitioner -accused shall not commit any offence. If the petitioner is found having committed any offence, the prosecution is at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to him.