Dhanush G S vs The State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 1483 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1483 Kant
Judgement Date : 19 February, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dhanush G S vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2026

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2026:KHC:10347
                                                        CRL.P No. 15763 of 2025


                      HC-KAR




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                               BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                       CRIMINAL PETITION No. 15763 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /
                                             483(BNSS))
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    DHANUSH G S
                            S/O SHIVANNA. J
                            AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
                            RESIDING AT
                            GUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE
                            KASABA HOBLI
                            TURUVEKERE TALUK
                            TUMKUR DISTRICT
                            STUDYING 3RD SEM OF DIPLOMA AT H.M.S COLLEGE
                            SETTIHALLI MAIN ROAD, TUMKUR CITY.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER

                      (BY SRI P GYARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
                      AND:
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                      1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            BY KUNIGAL POLICE STATION
                            TUMKUR DISTRICT
                            REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                            HIGH COURT BUILDING
                            AT BANGALORE.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)

                           THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED
                      UNDER SECTION 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
                      APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 483 OF THE BHARATHIYA
                                -2-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC:10347
                                        CRL.P No. 15763 of 2025


HC-KAR




NAGARIKA SURAKSHA SANHITA 2023 AND ENLARGE HIM ON
REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME No.225/2025 IN C.C.No.1479/2025,
IN THE PENDING FILE OF RESPONDENT POLICE OF KUNIGAL
THE CASE STAGE IS READY TO COMMITTAL TRAIL COURT AT
TUMKUR.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR



                        ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed by accused No.2 under

Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.

225/2025 of Kunigal Police Station registered for offence

under Sections 61(2)(a), 238(b), 109(1), 308(5),

137(1)(a), 3(5), 103 of BNS.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

learned HCGP for respondent - State.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend

that accused No.1 has been granted bail by this Court in

Crl.P.No.16624/2025 by order dated 28.01.2023. This

petitioner -accused No.2 is also similarly placed to that of

accused No.1 who has been granted bail. Therefore, the

NC: 2026:KHC:10347

HC-KAR

petitioner -accused No.2 is also entitled for grant of bail

on the ground of parity. The petitioner is in custody since

15.05.2025 and he is not required for further custodial

interrogation as charge sheet is filed. There are no

criminal antecedents of the petitioner. With this he prayed

to allow the petition.

4. Per contra learned HCGP would contend that

the alleged act of petitioner and accused No.1 assaulting

and killing the deceased has been recorded in CCTV and

footage has been seized. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have given

supari to kill the deceased and it shows the intention of

accused No.1 to kill the deceased. Charge sheet materials

show prima facie case against the petitioner for offence

alleged against him. With this he prayed to reject the

petition.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,

this Court has perused charge sheet and other materials

placed on record.

NC: 2026:KHC:10347

HC-KAR

6. This Court while granting bail to accused No.1

in Crl.P.No.16624/2025 by order dated 28.01.2026 has

observed as under:

"6. Deceased is father of the petitioner. Petitioner is having a sister. There is an allegation that the deceased was looking at his daughter with sexual intent. It is alleged that the petitioner earlier gave supari to other accused, but, subsequently on the day of incident, he and accused No. 2 went to the factory of deceased and committed his murder. At the time of incident there were exchange of words between petitioner and deceased. At that time deceased assaulted with steel rod on accused No. 1 and at that time, petitioner with a towel pressed the neck of the deceased and at that time accused No. 2 held the deceased tightly. Said aspect indicates that the deceased first assaulted the petitioner.

7. Entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. CCTV footage which is alleged to contain the recording of the acts of this petitioner and another accused, killing the deceased has been seized. As the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence each of the circumstances have to be proved at the trial. As charge sheet is filed petitioner is not required for

NC: 2026:KHC:10347

HC-KAR

further custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner."

The allegation against accused No.1 is that he along

with petitioner went to the factory of the deceased and

committed his murder. Considering the same, the

petitioner is similarly placed to that of accused No.1 who

has been granted bail. As charge sheet is filed, he is not

required for custodial interrogation. There are no criminal

antecedents of the petitioner. Considering the above, the

petitioner has made out case for grant of bail with

conditions.

7. In the result, the following

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed.