- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2154 CRL.P No. 200509 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200509 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SAGAR @ SURESH S/O MALLIKARJUN SHIVASHARANA, AGE:25 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. KURAGOTAGI VILLAGE, TQ.DAKSHIN SOLAPUR, DIST. SOLAPUR – 413 004 (MAHARASHTRA STATE). …PETITIONER (BY SRI R.S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE PSI., ZALAKI PS, CHADACHAN PS, REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585 103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 483 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS BAIL PETITION, THEREBY ORDER THE RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN ZALAKI PS. CHADACHAN CIRCLE CRIME NO.07/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, INDI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 103(1) R/W S. 3(5) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2154 CRL.P No. 200509 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. Petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.7/2025 of respondent – police has filed this petition, seeking regular bail. Factual matrix of the case: 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 27.01.2025, one Mr. Dyamagond s/o Shankar Kamble r/o Mankalagi, lodged a complaint against the petitioner and another stating that, the deceased Siddaram happens to be the brother of the complainant. The said Siddaram had advanced an amount of Rs.10,000/- to Mallikarjuna s/o Suresh Shivasharana, who is the father-in-law of the complainant. On 26.01.2025, around 07.00 p.m., there was a quarrel between his brother and his father-in-law relating to the financial issues. His brother was told that the tractor loaded with sugar cane, which belongs to the father-in-law of the complainant, was parked in front of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2154 CRL.P No. 200509 of 2025 Bhimashankar Sugar Factory. He went there and removed the air from the tyres of the tractor and came back. 3. On 27.01.2025, around 08.00 – 09.00 p.m., his father-in- law called the complainant stating that, his brother had removed air from the tyres of the tractor and created nuisance in the factory premises and went away and also instructed the complainant to advice him properly. The complainant requested his father-in-law that he would set right the issue and also asked him to come to the house. 4. In the meantime, around 12 noon, his friend namely Jaibheema, s/o Malappa Kamble had called the complainant over the phone and informed him that his brother Siddaram had sustained severe injuries in the premises of Bhimashankar Sugar Factory and he was very serious and asked him to come near the sugar factory premises at the earliest. He went to the premises of the sugar factory, however, he did not find his brother. There, he was told that, his brother had been taken to the hospital by his relatives. The complainant called his relative namely Sagar and asked about his brother. The said Sagar replied that he was taking his brother to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2154 CRL.P No. 200509 of 2025 hospital for treatment. Immediately, he requested the said Sagar to bring his brother back. Accordingly, the said Sagar has returned the car and reached the place where he had to reach. From there, the complainant took his brother in the ambulance for treatment. However, during the journey to the hospital, his brother died due to the said injury. Therefore, he lodged a complaint before the respondent - police. The respondent-police after registering the case, conducted investigation. 5. Heard Sri R.S. Lagali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 6. It is a submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. The alleged incident had taken place at the instance of the deceased, who, in fact, provoked the situation. The petitioner had no intention to commit the murder of the deceased. Due to sudden provocation, the petitioner and other accused assaulted the deceased. After having sustained injuries, they themselves took the injured to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2154 CRL.P No. 200509 of 2025 the hospital in their car. That would indicate that, they had no intention to commit murder. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner is aged about 25 years, working as a driver and permanent resident of Kuragotagi Village, Solapur and he will abide the conditions imposed by this Court, in the event of his release on bail. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the said submissions and he further submitted that the petitioner and other accused, with an intention to commit the murder of the deceased, assaulted on the vital parts of the body of the deceased, knowingly that he is their relative. Though, they tried to shift the injured to the hospital, the fact remains that, the injured was declared as brought dead. That itself would indicate that the petitioner and others had intention to commit murder of the deceased. Therefore, it is not proper to grant him bail. Moreover, the petitioner is the permanent resident of Maharashtra and there may be chances of absconding from the case. Making such - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2154 CRL.P No. 200509 of 2025 submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to reject the petition. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the gravity of the offences, it appears from the record that the deceased is the relative of the petitioner and others. The father-in-law of the complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the deceased and it was not repaid to the deceased. The deceased being enraged for not receiving the amount of which he had advanced as a loan, went to Bhimashankar Sugar Factory premises and removed the air of the tyres of the tractor and he stated to have quarreled with the family members of his sister-in-law. 10. The averments of the complaint would indicate that the petitioner had assaulted the deceased on vital parts of his body and caused injuries. As a result of which, the deceased died while shifting to the hospital for treatment. Prima facie, there are materials to show that the petitioner and other accused had caused grievous injuries on the vital parts of the body. Whether they had intention - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2154 CRL.P No. 200509 of 2025 to commit murder or not is a matter of trial. At this juncture, it is not proper to grant bail to the petitioner. 11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition stands rejected. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file petition after filing of the charge sheet. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP/Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT:PK