- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2585 CRL.P No. 200507 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200507 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. RAGHOBA S/O NAMDEV GHORWADE, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 2. MAHADEV S/O NAMDEV GHORWADE, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 3. NAMADEV S/O KASHINATHRAO GHORWADE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE R/O. GOKUL VILLAGE, TQ. BASAVAKALAYAN, DIST. BIDAR-585 327. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE BASAVAKALAYAN RURAL POLICE DISTRICT BIDAR, REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585 103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2585 CRL.P No. 200507 of 2025 THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 483 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS BAIL PETITION, THEREBY ORDER THE RELEASE OF THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN BASAVAKALYAN PS CRIME NO.14/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BASAVAKALYAN FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 109, 118(1), 118(2), 126(2), 352 R/W SECTION 3(5) OF BHARATIYA NAYAYA SANHITA, 2023. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking regular bail in Crime No.14/2025, registered by the Basavakalyan Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 118(2), 126(2) 352 read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Basavakalyan. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2585 CRL.P No. 200507 of 2025 2. Factual matrix of the case are that: It is the case of the prosecution that Chetan S/o Vilasrao Ghorwadi filed a complaint stating that he had landed property at Shivara bearing Sy.No.60 measuring 4 acres. Adjacent to his land, the land of his cousin is situated. There was a dispute in respect of cart road to the land. In that context, there were frequent quarrel between the complainant and his cousin. Prior to this incident, the cousins had assaulted, himself and his father and caused injuries to them. There was a complaint, filed by the complainant against the cousin in respect of earlier incident. Such being the fact, on 01.02.2025 at about 01-00 p.m., his father went to his land by taking cows along with him for the purpose of grazing them. At about 03-00 p.m., he is stated to have received an information that the quarrel had taken place between his father and his cousin. He went to the spot and found that his father lying on the road. His father had sustained injuries on his - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2585 CRL.P No. 200507 of 2025 head and other parts of his body. When it was questioned, his father stated him that at about 02-00 p.m., when his father has gone to feed the water to the cows, accused Nos.1 to 4 with a common intention to commit murder by holding the deadly weapons in their hands, assaulted him and caused injuries. Immediately, his father was shifted to the Government Hospital at Basavakalyan. Based on the said complaint, a case came to be registered against the petitioners. The Investigating Officer, after conducting the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet. 3. Heard Sri R.S. Lagali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. There were family disputes lying between them. Though, it is stated that the petitioners had assaulted the injured, the said injuries are not grievous in nature. After taking the treatment, the injured - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2585 CRL.P No. 200507 of 2025 has been discharged from the hospital. The wound certificate though appears that injury No.1 is grievous in nature, the fact remains that the other injuries are simple in nature. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, if the petitioners had an intention to commit murder, they would not have saved him and should have killed him. There might be several reasons to provoke the petitioners to assault injured. Such provocation did not take not place in the complaint. Therefore, intention to commit murder certainly not applicable to the case on hand. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the members of the same family and aged about 22, 24 and 60 years respectively. Since they are the same family members, and earning members of the family, the entire family is suffering from their absence. Therefore, they may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2585 CRL.P No. 200507 of 2025 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there may be chances of committing not only similar offences but also murder. It is further submitted that, there are number of cases pending between the petitioners and the complainant and others. At this stage, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there may be chances of threatening the eyewitnesses to the incident. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant them bail. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge-sheet, it appears from the record that the petitioners and the complainant are the cousins. There was a dispute between them in respect of cart road. Prior to this incident, the petitioners had assaulted the injured and complainant and there was a complaint filed against these petitioners. Again, it is stated that the petitioners had committed these offences. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2585 CRL.P No. 200507 of 2025 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has made available the charge-sheet, which indicates that there are three eyewitnesses and one victim in the case. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioners have committed similar offences prior to this incident also. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant them bail till examination of the victim and the eyewitnesses are over. With these observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is rejected. (ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file a fresh bail petition seeking bail on the ground that if any delay is caused in conducting the examination of the eyewitnesses. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3