Madhusudan vs State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 2242 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2242 Kant
Judgement Date : 12 March, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Madhusudan vs State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2026

                                               -1-
                                                          NC: 2026:KHC:14696
                                                       CRL.P No. 727 of 2026


                 HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                              BEFORE

                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

                            CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 727 OF 2026

                                 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)-)


                 BETWEEN:

                 1.    MADHUSUDAN
                       S/O. NANDA KUMAR
                       AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
                       RESIDING AT NO.11,
                       6TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN,
                       MOHAN KUMAR NAGAR,
Digitally              YESHWANTHAPURA,
signed by
SREEDHARAN             BENGALURU-560 022.
BANGALORE
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI
Location: High
Court of                                                       ...PETITIONER
Karnataka
                 (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA B. V., ADVOCATE)


                 AND:

                 1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                       BY VIDYARANYAPURA P.S.
                       BENGALURU,
                           -2-
                                      NC: 2026:KHC:14696
                                   CRL.P No. 727 of 2026


HC-KAR




   REP. BY STATE
   PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
   HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX,
   BENGALURU-560 001.


                                          ...RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N. HCGP)

                          ---

     THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED

U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON

BAIL IN CR.NO.401/2025 OF VIDYARANAYAPURA P.S. FOR THE

ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109,

115(2), 351(2), 352, 324(4), 190 OF THE BNS, 2023 AND

SECTION 3 OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY

ACT, 25(1B) ARMS ACT 1959, PENDING ON THE FILE OF

HONBLE VII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT

BENGALURU CITY.


     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
                               -3-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC:14696
                                            CRL.P No. 727 of 2026


HC-KAR




                        ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in

Crime No.401/2025 of respondent/police for the offences

punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(2), 352,

324(5), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and

Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property

Act, 1984 and Section 25(1B)(b) of Arms Act, 1959. The

petitioner is seeking for regular bail.

Brief facts of the case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that the

complainant was working as a Security Guard at

Mookambika India Oil Fuel Station at Ramachandrapura

Main Road. It is alleged that, on 21.11.2025, at about

11.00 p.m., when he was discharging his duty, one

Maruthi WagonR bearing Reg. No.KA-03-AM-3079 came

from BEL Circle road. In the meantime, a motorcycle

bearing Reg. No. KA-13-K-4888 came with high speed in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed to the car, as a

NC: 2026:KHC:14696

HC-KAR

result of which, the car got damaged. There was a quarrel

between the driver of the car and the rider of the bike. The

driver of the car had to stay there as the car did not start.

In the meantime, the rider of the motorcycle went to his

house and brought five to six persons including men and

women, as soon as they came to the spot, they started

quarrelling with the driver of the car. Additionally, another

three persons came on behalf of the rider of the scooter

and were quarrelling with the driver of the car and

assaulted him. It is further stated that, some of the

persons who had accompanied the rider of the motorcycle

tried to throw size stones on the head of the driver of the

car to kill him. However, the driver of the car escaped

from their clutches and ran away from the spot.

Thereafter, they got damaged the car bonnet and also

damaged the front glass of the car. When the complainant

planned to inform the police, one of the members of the

mob assaulted the complainant with stone and tried to kill

the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant ran away

NC: 2026:KHC:14696

HC-KAR

from the spot and informed the owner of the petrol bunk

and thereafter, lodged the complaint.

3. Based on the complaint, the respondent/police

have registered a case and conducted investigation and

the investigation is under progress.

4. Heard Sri Manjunatha B.V., learned counsel for

the petitioner and Smt. Anitha Girish N., learned High

Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged

offences. Though the averments in the complaint would

indicate that the injured had sustained severe injuries all

over his body, the fact remains that, no wound certificate

has been produced to substantiate the said allegation. It is

further contended that the petitioner has been falsely

implicated in the case only in order to take revenge by the

police officials in connection with other cases.

NC: 2026:KHC:14696

HC-KAR

6. It is also submitted that no test identification

parade was conducted. Even assuming that the allegations

of the complainant are to be true, in the absence of any

medical report, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner

had an intention to commit murder of the injured.

Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by

imposing suitable conditions. Making such admissions, he

prays to allow the petition.

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader vehemently submitted that the petitioner is a

habitual offender. There are three cases pending against

him. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there may be

chances of committing similar offences. Hence, it is not

appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submissions,

she prays to reject the petition.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties and perused the averments of the complaint. It

appears that a quarrel had taken place between the car

NC: 2026:KHC:14696

HC-KAR

driver and the bike rider. It is also noticed that the bike

rider had called his friends, who allegedly assaulted the

complainant and also driver of the car.

9. It is further stated that they damaged the car

as well as the public property. However, the prosecution

has failed to produce the wound certificate to establish the

nature and gravity of the injuries said to have been caused

to the complainant and another. Having considered the

same, it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing

suitable conditions. Hence I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed.

ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.401/2025 of respondent/police for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(2), 352, 324(5), 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and Section 25(1B)(b) of Arms Act, 1959, on executing personal bond for a sum of

NC: 2026:KHC:14696

HC-KAR

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.