- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1694 CRL.P No. 100021 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100021 OF 2025 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: 1. KURUBAR DEVIRAPPA S/O. MUKADAPPA, AGE: 63 YEARS (WRONGLY MENTIONER AS 60 YEARS IN CHARAGE SHEET), OCC.: LABOURER, R/O. 6TH WARD, NEAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE, GADIGANOORU VILLAGE, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583223. 2. NAGAMMA W/O. DEVIRAPPA, AGE: 54 YEARS, (WRONGLY MENTIONER AS 46 YEARS IN CHARAGE SHEET), OCC.: LABOURER, R/O. 6TH WARD, NEAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE, GADIGANOORU VILLAGE, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583223. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI AKSHAYA ANIL KATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH INSPECTOR, HOSAPETE RURAL POLICE STATION, REPTD. BY STATE PUBILC PROSECUTOR, S.P.P. OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 483 OF BNSS (439 OF CR.P.C.), SEEKING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NO.3 AND 4) ON BAIL U/SEC. 483 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIKA SURAKSHA SAMHITA, 2023, IN HOSAPETE RURAL P.S. CRIME NO.192/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 103(1) R/W. 54, 49 AND SEC. 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SAMHITA, 2023 PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HOSAPETE. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.30 14:27:02 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1694 CRL.P No. 100021 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.192/2024 by Hospet Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Section 103(1) read with Sections 54, 49 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (‘BNS’ for short) by accused no.3 and 4. 2. Sri Akshaya A. Katti, learned counsel for petitioners submitted case of prosecution was based on complaint filed by Mylarappa on 09.09.2024 stating that his daughter Shruthi (victim) was married to Ramalingappa Meti and since three months, Ramalingappa was assaulting victim on instigation of his mother-Sharanamma and petitioners-Devirappa and Nagamma who were maternal uncle and aunt of Ramlingappa, doubting her chastity. It was further stated that on 09.09.2024 at 1:30 a.m., Ramalingappa by doubting chastity of his wife had killed her by strangulation in their bedroom. It was alleged that murder was due to instigation by petitioners and accused - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1694 CRL.P No. 100021 of 2025 no.2 and therefore had sought to take action. Based on complaint, Crime no.19/2024 was registered by Hospet Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Section 103(1) read with Sections 54, 49 and Section 3(5) of BNS. 3. It was submitted, petitioners were arrested on 09.09.2024 and were in custody since then. It was submitted that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was already filed on 16.11.2024 wherein, prosecution claimed to be relying upon evidence of 41 witnesses. It was firstly submitted, only averment in complaint implicating petitioners was about instigation by petitioners suspecting chastity of victim and which is alleged to have instigated accused no.1 to murder his wife. It was submitted, neither complaint averments nor any material collected by prosecution during course of investigation was of such nature as to substantiate instigation that would have led accused no.1 to murder his wife. It was submitted, petitioners were residing separately than accused no.1. They were having movable and immovable properties, were permanent residents of Gadiganooru village earning their livelihood by doing coolie work. There were no criminal antecedents and were falsely implicated. It was submitted, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1694 CRL.P No. 100021 of 2025 since charge-sheet was already filed and petitioners were in custody since 09.09.2024, conclusion of trial was likely to be delayed. It was further submitted that rejection of bail petition by learned District Judge was only on ground that offences alleged were heinous which was not appropriate. On above grounds, sought to allow petition. 4. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent-State sought to oppose petition. It was at outset submitted, offences alleged against accused were grave and heinous. It was submitted, as per complaint averments and material collected during course of investigation, at instigation of accused no.3 and 4 (petitioners herein) heinous offence of murder was committed by accused no.1. Only motive for murder being suspicion of character which was at instance of petitioners herein, provisions of Sections 49 and 3(5) of BNS were invoked. It was submitted, post-mortem examination report indicated that death of victim was due to strangulation in matrimonial home. Same would clearly implicate accused. On said grounds, sought for rejection of petition. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1694 CRL.P No. 100021 of 2025 6. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioners are entitled for regular bail with conditions?” 7. This petition is for regular bail filed by accused no.3 and 4 in Crime no.192/2024 for offences punishable under Section 103(1) read with Sections 54, 49 and 3(5) of BNS. Offence under Section 103 of BNS is punishable with death or imprisonment for life whereas, offence under Section 54 of BNS is same as principal offence but charged only against accused no.2 while Section 49 of BNS, instigation, would also carry same punishment as principal offence. This would indicate that offences alleged against petitioners are heinous, severe and grave in nature. Perusal of complaint and charge-sheet would indicate that as per prosecution, at instigation of petitioners, accused no.1 suspected chastity of his wife and murdered his wife by strangulation. Prima facie, charge is not based on any material directly implicating accused no.3 and 4. As noted even by learned District Judge, petitioners were residing separately from accused no.1 and victim and claim to be law abiding citizens and permanent residents of same village holding movable and immovable properties without any criminal - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1694 CRL.P No. 100021 of 2025 antecedents which is not denied or disputed by prosecution. Whether petitioners have committed offence as alleged would require to be proved by prosecution during trial. Until then, they would be entitled to be considered innocent. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2012 (1) SCC 49, held purpose of bail is only to secure presence of petitioner during trial and not as a measure of punishment of undertrial. Therefore petitioners could be granted bail by imposing appropriate conditions. Hence, point for consideration is answered in affirmative. Accordingly following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioners/accused no.3 and 4 are released on bail in Crime no.192/2024 of Hospet Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Section 103(1) read with Sections 54, 49 and 3(5) of BNS, subject to following conditions: a) Each Petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1694 CRL.P No. 100021 of 2025 b) Petitioners/accused no.3 and 4 shall not threaten, tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly. c) They shall appear before Investigation Officer as and when required for further investigation, if any. d) They shall not indulge in any criminal activities. e) They shall be regular in attending Court proceedings. f) Violation of any of conditions would entitle cancellation of bail. g) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE RH CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 7