Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22096
CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16879 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
M.M. THAMMAIAH @ KIRANA
S/O LATE MEDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT KAVADI VILLAGE AND POST
VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI PUTTARAJA C.P, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIRAJPET RURAL POLICE STATION
KODAGU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP)
Digitally
signed by B
LAVANYA
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO GRANT BAIL IN (CR.NO.139/223) S.C.NO.524/2024
P/U/S 302 OF IPC REGISTERED BY VIRAJPET RURAL P.S. ON THE
FILE OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT KODAGU AT
MADIKERI SITTING AT VIRAJPET.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22096
CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the accused in SC No.5020/2024
pending before the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions
Court, Kodagu-Madikeri, sitting at Virajpet, arising out of Crime
No.139/2023 registered by Virajpet Rural Police Station,
Kodagu, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC,
under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.
2. Facts of the case are that on 17.10.2023, complaint
was lodged alleging that the mother of accused Smt. M. M.
Jothi died in suspicious circumstances. The allegations in the
charge sheet are that accused was residing with his mother
deceased Jothi. He was in the habit of quarrelling with her for
money and with an intent to consume alcohol. A panchayat was
conveyed to this effect as the accused was constantly
quarrelling with the mother and in which the accused had given
an undertaking in writing stating he would not harass his
mother.
3. On 16.10.2023 at 09.45 p.m. while the deceased was
sitting in the hall and watching television, the accused picked
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22096
CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025
HC-KAR
up quarrel with her over trivial matter of adding salt in the food
and with an intent to commit her murder, pushed her against
the wall and thereafter strangulated her neck with his right
hand causing her death. Complaint was lodged and thereafter,
accused was implicated for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet has been
laid against the accused and the accused was taken into
custody for interrogation.
4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner/accused that the petitioner is innocent of the
offence alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated
in the case and there are no reasonable grounds on record to
believe that the petitioner/accused is guilty of the offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for life for the reason
that allegations made against the accused are vexatious and
concocted. It is further contented by learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused that there are no eye witnesses to the
incident. He is in custody for more than two years eight
months. It is further contented by learned counsel for the
petitioner that out of 41 witnesses, 39 witnesses are examined.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22096
CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025
HC-KAR
The case is based on circumstantial evidence and some of the
witnesses have been given up by the prosecution. It is
contented that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the
family. If he is kept in judicial custody for long, he will be
branded as offender and a hard core criminal rendering his life
into ruins. He has further contended that petitioner has deep
roots in the society and has got a good image around the
vicinity. It is also contended that the petitioner will not flee
away from justice and will cooperate with the trial which is at
the fag end and he will abide by any conditions that may be
imposed by this Court. It is further submitted that the
petitioner had filed a petition earlier before the learned
Sessions Judge for grant of regular bail in
Crl.Misc.No.5175/2025, which came to be rejected by order
dated 20.09.2025. Hence, he seeks this Court to enlarge the
petitioner/accused on bail.
5. Per contra , learned HCGP representing the State
vehemently contends that the accused has committed heinous
offence of murdering his own mother and he was having prior
history of being a drunkard and alcoholic and on every
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22096
CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025
HC-KAR
occasion, he would pick up quarrel and fight with his mother, to
which a panchayat was conducted in which he has tendered his
apology, which is on record. It is also contented by learned
HCGP that the gravity of the offence is serious and if convicted,
it could be imprisonment for life or he may be convicted even
for death. Therefore, he seeks for rejection of the bail.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused
and learned HCGP for the respondent State.
7. There is no dispute with regard to relationship between
the petitioner/accused and the deceased, who was his mother.
The incident has occurred on 16.10.2023 at 09.45 p.m., and
the mother has died. Investigation is completed and trial has
begun and 39 witnesses have been examined out of 41
witnesses. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses. The case is
based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Few more witnesses
are left to be examined. The petitioner/accused has been in
judicial custody for two years eight months and few days. Since
the evidence is coming to a fag end, if the petitioner is released
on bail, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22096
CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025
HC-KAR
as he can be put on stringent conditions to participate in the
trial. This Court is of the opinion that petitioner is aged 37
years, has deep roots in the Society. There are no criminal
antecedents against petitioner. It is also seen the petitioner is
the sole bread winner of the family. He is a permanent resident
of Kodagu District. It is seen the petitioner is not required for
any custodial interrogation. Most of the witnesses are
examined, there is no chance of fleeing from justice or
tampering with witnesses. If the petitioner is not released on
bail, there are chances of getting into bad company and
becoming hard core criminal. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that stringent conditions can be imposed and accused can be
granted bail rather than languishing in judicial custody.
8. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 , wherein
at paras-1, 2, 5 and 6, it is held as under:
"Leave granted. A fundamental postulate of
criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of
innocence, meaning thereby that a person is
believed to be innocent until found guilty. However,
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22096
CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025
HC-KAR
there are instances in our criminal law where a
reverse onus has been placed on an accused with
regard to some specific offences but that is another
matter and does not detract from the fundamental
postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another
important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that
the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a
person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home
(whichever expression one may wish to use) is an
exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic
principles appear to have been lost sight of with the
result that more and more persons are being
incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not
do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our
society.
2. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of
bail is entirely the discretion of the judge
considering a case but even so, the exercise of
judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large
number of decisions rendered by this Court and by
every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally
there is a necessity to introspect whether denying
bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on
the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
xxx
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22096
CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. The historical background of the provision
for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in
a recent decision delivered in Nikesh Tarachand
Shah v. Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 1 going back
to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision,
reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v.
State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is
observed that it was held way back in Nagendra
Nath Chakravarti, In re AIR 1924 Cal 476 that bail is
not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was
also made to Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson AIR 1931
All 356 wherein it was observed that grant of bail is
the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision
for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal
interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a
century old, going back to colonial days.
6. However, we should not be understood to
mean that bail should be granted in every case. The
grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the
discretion of the judge hearing the matter and
though that discretion is unfettered, it must be
exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and
compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of
bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of
compliance, thereby making the grant of bail
illusory."
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22096
CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. Accordingly, I pass the following:-
ORDER
The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged
on bail in SC No.5020/2024 pending before the Court of II
Addl. District and Sessions Court, Kodagu-Madikeri, sitting at
Virajpet, arising out of Crime No.139/2023 registered by
Virajpet Rural Police Station, Kodagu, for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC, subject to the following
conditions:
a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety for
the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
Court;
b) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial.
c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses;
d) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction
of the Trial Court without permission of the said
Court until the case registered against him is
disposed off.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22096
CRL.P No. 16879 of 2025
HC-KAR
e) In case of violation of any of the above
conditions, respondent - State is at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that no opinion is expressed on the
chargesheet and the evidence recorded before the trial Court.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
DN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2