Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/3317/2026 of SRI YOGANANDA Vs STATE BY TOWN POLICE STATION TUMAKUR on 8 April 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:19217 CRL.P No. 3317 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3317 OF 2026 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI YOGANANDA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3317 OF 2026
(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI YOGANANDA
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT VENKATESHAPURA,
SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 106
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVIKUMARA B R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY
TOWN POLICE STATION TUMAKUR
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU – 560 001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP)
Digitally
signed by
PAVITHRA
N
Location:
High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO GRANT
BAIL TO THIS PETITIONER IN CR.NO.289/2025 REGISTERED
BY
TUMAKURU
TOWN
P.S.,
(NOW
NUMBERED
AS
SC.NO.177/2025) PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT TUMAKURU, FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 103(1), 115(2), 351(2) AND 352 OF BNS, 2023.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.289/2025 filed by the respondent – Police for the offences punishable under Section 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNS) seeking regular bail. Factual matrix of the case:
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is the father of the petitioner and the
HC-KAR
deceased was the grandmother of the petitioner. The grandmother of the petitioner had executed a Will in favour of the father of the petitioner. The petitioner was unhappy and he was quarrelling with his grandmother and threatening her that she should cancel the Will executed in favour of his father and execute it in his favour.
3. On 29.07.2025, the complainant asked the petitioner as to why he had quarreled with his mother. The petitioner without considering that the complainant is his father, started abusing him with a filthy language and assaulting the complainant. In the meantime, the grandmother of the petitioner came to rescue her son, at that time, the petitioner took the wooden log and assaulted on the head of his grandmother and also banged her head against the wall. Consequently, she had sustained injuries, thereafter, on the following day, she died. Hence the complaint. The respondent-Police after registering a case, conducted investigation and submitted the charge-sheet.
HC-KAR
3. Heard Sri. RaviKumara B.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Anitha Girish N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. He had no intention to commit the murder of his grandmother. The incident had occurred at a spur of moment and due to sudden provocation. The petitioner is the earning member of the family. He will abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submission learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State vehemently submitted that the offence committed by the petitioner is not only against the individual but also against the society and public at large. The manner in which he has assaulted his grandmother and father on account of the property
HC-KAR
dispute is considered as one of the heinous cases. The grandmother of the petitioner had sustained severe head injury and later she succumbed to the said injuries. If, the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there may be chances of threatening the complainant and also absconding from the case. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submission learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State prays to reject the petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the charge-sheet. It appears from the record that the petitioner was insisting his grandmother to cancel the Will executed in favour of his father and to execute the Will in his favour. In the said altercation, the petitioner had assaulted both his father and grandmother and committed murder of his grandmother.
7. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to reject the bail not only in
HC-KAR
the interest of his father, but also in the interest of the society. The Courts are required to give a strong message to the public that stringent action would be taken against the accused under such circumstances.
8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition stands rejected.
Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE
NM