- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2755 CRL.P No. 200568 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200568 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS) BETWEEN: NAGARAJ S/O SHANTKUMAR HAVAGUNDA AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: PEON, R/O KALAGI VILLAGE, TQ. KALAGI, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585312. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHANTESH H. DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KALAGI P.S REPRESENTED THROUGH ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH KALABURAGI – 585104. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI G.B. YADAV, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO RELEASE THE ACCUSED PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.38/2024 OF KALAGI P.S. PENDING BEFORE COURT OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI ITINERARY COURT AT CHITTAPUR IN SC NO.256/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. 302 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2755 CRL.P No. 200568 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for regular bail, by the accused in Crime No.38/2024 registered by Kalagi Police Station, Kalaburagi district for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2. The factual matrix of the case leading to the case of the prosecution is that, with respect to the previous history of assault and quarrel between the accused and the son of complainant i.e. Laxmikant on the premise that Laxmikant was having illicit relationship with the wife of accused - petitioner herein, on 27.06.2024 at about 8.30 p.m. when the complainant was standing outside his house, he heard aloud scream of his son by the side of the house of one Santosh Patange. Immediately he rushed to the spot wherein it is alleged that, the accused assaulted his son (deceased) with a sharp edged weapon on the head of the deceased who had fallen on the C.C. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2755 CRL.P No. 200568 of 2025 road. Seeing the complainant, the accused fled away. Immediately thereafter, hearing the scream of the son, the mother and brother of the deceased rushed to the spot and they took the deceased on the motor cycle to the Government Hospital, on arrival, the doctor intimated that he has died. The reason for causing the murder is the alleged illicit relationship with the wife of the accused and that enraged him at an earlier point of time resulting in quarrel and the same now resulted in murder of son of the complainant. 3. Heard Sri Mahantesh Desai learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri G.B. Yadav, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent – State. 4. Sri Mahantesh Desai submits that though in the complaint the complainant has stated that he has seen the accused assaulting his son deceased Laxmikant with a sharp edged weapon causing bleeding injuries on his head which has resulted in the death of his son, he argued that in the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2755 CRL.P No. 200568 of 2025 the relatives, including mother and brother of the deceased, they have not at all stated regarding the presence of the complainant on the spot when the incident had taken place. All that they have stated is that at about 8.30 p.m. on 27.06.2024, deceased was standing outside the house, they heard aloud scream of deceased and rushed towards the house of Santosh Patange and found Laxmikant lying on the C.C. road with bleeding injuries. It is their case that they have seen Nagaraj was fleeing from the scene of offence. It is not in dispute that Nagaraj as well as the complainant are neighbours and the presence of Nagaraj at that point may not be lead to the conclusion that he is the reason for causing death of complainant’s son. 5. He submits that the petitioner is arrested on 28.06.2024 and since then he is in judicial custody. The police have completed the investigation and filed charge sheet and now the matter is pending on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2755 CRL.P No. 200568 of 2025 Itinerary Court at Chittapur in S.C.No.256/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He submits that in view of the subsequent statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., there is a doubt regarding the presence of the complainant. The averments of the complainant is very doubtful so also the statements before the police by other relatives on the basis of information given by the complainant. With this, he submits that further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted and prays to allow the petition and release the petitioner on regular bail. 6. Sri G.B. Yadav, learned HCGP, with all vehemence, submits that the complainant is the eyewitness to the incident. In the complaint he has clearly stated that he had seen the accused assaulting his son with a sharp edged weapon on his head resulting in bleeding injury which as per the postmortem report is the cause for death and all the relatives have given statement before the police stating that, the complainant has - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2755 CRL.P No. 200568 of 2025 informed that the accused assaulting his son with a sharp edge weapon and all the witnesses more particularly the mother and brother of the deceased have clearly stated that, when they came out from the house they have seen the accused fleeing from the scene of occurrence. Insofar as the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., is concerned, he submits that, that cannot be a sole ground to release the petitioner on bail when the allegations made are serious and the offence is heinous in nature i.e., 302 of IPC, with this he submits that, the petition be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP, the only point that arises for my consideration is: “Whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner can be admitted on bail? - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2755 CRL.P No. 200568 of 2025 8. It is no doubt clear that, at the earliest point of time, in the complaint, the complainant has alleged as follows: “»VzÀÄÝ EAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27.06.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 09.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ ®QëöäÃPÁAvÀ£ÀÄ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV ªÀÄgÀ½ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 2-00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ HlPÉÌ §AzÀÄ, Hl ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ vÀ£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ EgÀĪÀ ¨ÉÊPÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛ£É. gÁwæ 8-30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß E£ÉÆߧ⠪ÀÄUÀ «£ÁAiÀÄPÀ E§âgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¤AvÁUÀ D ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ ¥ÀvÀAUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÉÊr£À UÉÆqÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ agÀĪÀzÀÄ, zsÀé¤ PÉý £Á£ÀÄ Nr C°èUÉ ºÉÆÃV £ÉÆrzÁUÀ, £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀªÀ£ÁzÀ £ÁUÀgÁd vÀAzÉ ±ÁAvÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ ºÁªÀUÀÄAqÀ ªÀ: 40 ªÀµÀð eÁ: ºÀlUÁgÀ EªÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß PÉÊAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ºÀjvÀªÁzÀ ªÀÄaѤAzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ ®QëöäÃPÁAvÀ EªÀgÀ vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ »A§¢ ºÉÆqÉ¢zÀÝjAzÀ ¨sÁj gÀPÀÛUÁAiÀĪÁV, UÉÆqÉUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀĪÀ ¹¹ gÉÆÃr£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ©¢ÝgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £Á£ÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß PÀAqÀÄ £ÁUÀgÁd£ÀÄ C°èAzÀ Nr ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛ£É.” 9. The mother, brother and other relatives of the deceased have all consistently stated in their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., before police that, it is the complainant who has informed them regarding the assault made by the accused on the head of the deceased with a sharp edged weapon. The mother and the brother of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2755 CRL.P No. 200568 of 2025 deceased alleged to have seen the accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence. Though the postmortem report corresponds with the injuries stated in the complaint, however, peculiarly the mother, brother and all relatives who have been examined under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate, have not stated anything regarding the presence of the complainant i.e. father of the deceased. Even the prosecution has not examined the father of the deceased under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. 10. The petitioner was arrested on 28.06.2024. Since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation is completed and now the case is pending before the Sessions Court for trial. There are several witnesses cited. The trial may consume considerable time. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, this Court feels that the petitioner may be admitted on bail. Hence, I pass the following: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2755 CRL.P No. 200568 of 2025 ORDER The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail, in Crime No.38/2024 of Kalagi Police Station, Kalaburagi district, registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, now pending in S.C.No.256/2024 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, Itinerary Court at Chittapur, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; b) The petitioner shall not tamper with the rest of the prosecution witnesses or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses in any manner; c) The petitioner shall attend the jurisdictional Sessions Court and co-operate with the smooth - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2755 CRL.P No. 200568 of 2025 functioning of the trial without causing any hindrance; d) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court without prior permission; e) Any violation of the conditions stipulated above would entail in cancellation of the bail; f) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE SWK,SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: PS