- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2766 CRL.P No. 100017 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100017 OF 2025 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: IRAYYA S/O. STAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KERUR, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. … PETITIONER (BY SRI HARSHAWARDHANA M.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HAROGERI P.S., REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/A3 ON REGULAR BAIL IN HAROGERI P.S. CRIME NO.172/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 143, 147, 363, 364A, 343, 323, 504 AND 506 R/W. 149 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (ACCUSED NO.3). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: BHARATHI H M Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Date: 2025.02.12 14:29:28 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2766 CRL.P No. 100017 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.172/2022 by Harugeri Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 363, 364A, 343, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) by accused no.3 (petitioner). 2. Sri Harshawardhana M. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, case of prosecution was that on 09.10.2022, Bhupal Basappa Ajure filed complaint stating he was permanent resident of Khanadal, Raibag taluk and residing with his mother and wife, while his children Bhimappa, Balappa and Geeta were residing separately. And Vasu Sahadev Naik (accused no.1) was a friend of Balappa. Further, Bhimappa had 3 Acres 30 guntas of land in same village. It was alleged that at about 10:30 p.m. on 23.09.2022, when complainant was sitting in front was sitting on porch in front of his house, accused no.1 came there along with five others and enquired whereabouts of Balappa, by stating that Balappa was due some money in some - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2766 CRL.P No. 100017 of 2025 financial transaction. He asked them to transfer 1 ½ Acres of land to clear same. When complainant pleaded ignorance about transaction, accused abused complainant stating that he knew how to recover money. Thereafter, they closed his eyes and mouth, tied his limbs and by putting him in their Scorpio Jeep, kidnapped him. When his wife tried to stop them, she was abused, assaulted and pushed aside. 3. Thereafter, he was taken to Chikkodi etc. At night, they used to keep him in vehicle and thrashed. They forced complainant to inform his wife to arrange payment of ransom amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Though complainant had asked his wife to arrange said amount pay ransom, she was unable to arrange it. Next day, accused no.1 called Lakkappa Pujari from Bhimappa’s village asking him to inform Balappa about kidnap of complainant only if he sells property and paid to him, complainant would be released. Even complainant was to convey same message at his home, with request to comply. On 26.09.2022, in pursuance of agreement of sale in respect of 1 ½ acres of land standing in name of Bhimappa, advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- received from purchaser was given to accused no.1. Thereafter, complainant was sent home but after - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2766 CRL.P No. 100017 of 2025 cautioning him that in case of failure to pay balance amount, he would be kidnapped again and threatening him against informing police. Thereafter on 29.09.2022, sale deed was executed, and Rs.17,50,000/- received was also paid to accused no.1. It was alleged, thus, accused had threatened, kidnapped, demanded ransom and forced complainant to pay Rs.37,15,000/-. Said complaint was registered as Crime no.172/2022 (supra). 4. At outset, it was submitted except for stating accused no.1 and four others, petitioner’s name was not specifically mentioned in complaint. His name was directly included in charge sheet without any basis. Complaint was mainly against accused no.1, and complainant had arraigned accused no.1 with unknown persons. Further, incident of kidnapped was on 23.09.2022, but complaint was filed on 09.10.2022. Thus, there was delay in lodging complaint. Further, contents of complaint showed earlier financial transactions. Moreover, without material petitioner was arrested on 27.09.2024 and charge sheet was filed on 04.10.2024. Therefore, petitioner would not be required for custodial interrogation. And since prosecution was relying on 35 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2766 CRL.P No. 100017 of 2025 witnesses, conclusion of trial was likely to be delayed. It was submitted, petitioner was law abiding citizen, aged 30 years old agriculturist and permanent resident of Kerur village, having movable and immovable properties. On above grounds, sought for allowing petition. 5. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent-State sought to oppose petition. It was submitted, petitioner was arraigned as accused no.3 based on complaint filed by Balappa. Though initially FIR was registered against accused no.1 and other unknown persons, during course of investigation, involvement of petitioner in commission of offences was found, material collected and petitioner was arraigned after collecting sufficient material. Delay in filing complaint was stated to be on account of existence of threat by accused no.1. Besides, there were criminal antecedents of petitioner as he was involved in Crime nos.160/2022, 26/2023 and 31/2023 by Harugeri PS. Therefore, there was high probability of petitioner committing similar offences, threatening prosecution witnesses or fleeing from justice. On said ground prayed for rejection. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2766 CRL.P No. 100017 of 2025 6. In reply learned counsel for petitioner submitted, that petitioner was acquitted in S.C.no.285/2016, while Crime nos.160/2022, 26/2023 and 31/2023 by Harugeri PS were still pending and petitioner had obtained bail in Crl.P.no.103124/2023 on 29.11.2023 in Crime no.26/2023 and Crl.P.no.103126/2023 on 29.11.2023 in Crime no.31/2023. Therefore, criminal antecedents would not come in way of consideration of petitioner’s application for bail. 7. Heard learned counsel. 8. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail on conditions?” 9. This petition is by accused no.3 seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime no.172/2022 (supra). Admittedly, accused are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 363, 364A, 343, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. 10. Offences alleged against accused are being member of unlawful assembly punishable with imprisonment for upto 6 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2766 CRL.P No. 100017 of 2025 months, rioting punishable with imprisonment for upto 2 years, kidnapping punishable with imprisonment for upto 7 years, kidnapping for ransom punishable with death or imprisonment for life, wrongful confinement punishable with imprisonment for upto 2 years, voluntarily causing hurt punishable with imprisonment for upto 1 year, intentional insult to provoke breach of peace punishable with imprisonment for upto 2 years and criminal intimidation punishable with imprisonment for upto 2 years. While nature of other offences would be serious, offence of kidnap for ransom would be heinous. 11. Prima facie complaint averments appear to contain ingredients for said offences. However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner, complainant did not specifically disclose name of petitioner in complaint and that it would prima facie implicate accused no.1. At same time, as pointed out by learned HCGP, complainant had stated about 4 others joining accused no.1 in commission of offences and accused no.1 had disclosed their names in his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC corroborated by statements of other accused. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2766 CRL.P No. 100017 of 2025 12. From material made available, it would appear that there is history of criminal cases involving both parties herein. Crime no.160/2022 appears to have been registered on complaint dated 09.09.2022 filed by Annappa @ Pintu before Harugeri Police Station for offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC, alleging that after separation of Annappa and Vasudev along with their respective friends and when Vasudev was harassing for returning money paid to Balappa, Annappa’s group had planned to murder Vasudev. When Vasudev got new of plan, on 08.09.2022, he went to Annappa’s house, threatened his mother, and looted Rs.32,80,000/- worth of property in mobile, Motorcycle and JCB by committed dacoity. 13. Likewise, Crime no.26/2023 was registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120 (b), 363, 364 (a), 344, 506, 323 read with Section 149 of IPC, when Shanthavva wife of Bhupal Basappa Ajure filed complaint on 11.02.2023, stating that on 30.01.2023, Vasudev and his group had threatened and extorted ransom amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for releasing her husband. But thereafter, her husband was kidnapped again with demand for additional Rs.30,00,000/-. And Crime no.31/2023 was registered on complaint by Bhupal - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2766 CRL.P No. 100017 of 2025 Basappa Ajure dated 11.02.2023, narrating earlier incidents giving rise to grudge against Balappa, due to which Balappa was kidnapped and murdered by Vasudev and his group on 19.08.2023, with destruction of evidence by disposing of body. 14. Above matters would indicate that there was history of enmity between Bhupal Ajure and Vasudev Naik. That apart, as per complaint, date of incident herein was 23.09.2022, but complaint was filed only on 09.10.2022 i.e. after 20 days. Even as per complaint, complainant was released on 26.09.2022 after paying Rs.5,00,000/-. Thereafter, complainant is stated to have paid further amount of Rs.37,15,000/- on 29.09.2022. Explanation offered that it was due to threat imposed by accused. Question whether same is be sufficient would have to be examined after trial. At present stage, delay in filing complaint inures to petitioner. 15. When considered in light of other criminal cases involving parties, there would be no force in contention that subject matter was a civil dispute between parties. However, filing of charge sheet on 04.10.2024 i.e. nearly two years after filing of complaint, though would not by itself entitle petitioner - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2766 CRL.P No. 100017 of 2025 for bail, but could be considered as a factor. Fact that petitioner is arrested on 27.09.2024 and has been in custody since, while charge sheet has been filed on 04.10.2024, would imply that there would be no further for custodial interrogation of petitioner. And merely on ground of criminal antecedents cannot be sole ground for rejection of bail petition. 16. In view of above, point for consideration is answered in affirmative, but with conditions imposed to mitigate prosecution concerns. Hence, following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused no.3 is released on bail in Crime no.172/2022 by Harugeri Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 363, 364A, 343, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, subject to following conditions: a) He shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum satisfaction of Court . b) He shall not threaten, tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly. c) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2766 CRL.P No. 100017 of 2025 d) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings. e) He shall mark his attendance once every fifteen days before Harugeri Police Station. f) It is clarified that views expressed are on prima facie consideration for purposes of this order and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD,CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6