- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1396 CRL.P No. 100042 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100042 OF 2025 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: SHRI SHRISHAIL S/O. BHIMARAY HUGAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE MAN(NAYAK), RESIDING AT HERAKAL VILLAGE, TALUK: BILAGI, DISTRICT: BAGALKOTE, PIN-587102. … PETITIONER (BY SRI SURAJ S. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BILAGI P.S., REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD, PIN-580011. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION AND FURTHER BE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL BY GRANTING REGULAR BAIL IN BILAGI P.S. CRIME NO.215/2024 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT BILAGI REGISTERED FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109, 352, 351(2) READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BNS, 2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.28 10:13:33 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1396 CRL.P No. 100042 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition is filed by accused no.1 (petitioner) under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.215/2024 of Bilagi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115 (2), 118 (1), 118 (2), 109, 352, 351 (2) read with Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’, for short). 2. Sri Suraj S Mutnal, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was apprehended on 03.11.2024 based on complaint dated 03.11.2024 lodged by one Chanabasu Hirannavar stating that on 02.11.2024 at about 9:30 p.m. near house of his uncle – Pundappa one Neelakantha @ Chinnu Gurunath Poojari (accused no.2) resident of Lokapur had lighted crackers and thrown them near cattle. Therefore, his uncle’s son Irappa had informed him not to burst crackers, which led to quarrel, but pacified. Thereafter, when complainant and Irappa were sleeping in Yelaguradappa Temple at around 10:00 p.m., petitioner along with Neelakantha came there and began quarrel even when complainant told them that - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1396 CRL.P No. 100042 of 2025 issue of bursting crackers was already settled. When complainant tried to intervene, he was abused and assaulted with cycle chain by Neelakantha. Thereafter, both accused assaulted him with hands. At that time, complainant’s brother, father, uncle and others arrived and saved them. However, while leaving accused threatened them with further action. Thereafter, when complainant along with his uncle etc. went to house of petitioner to enquire, he came out abused them and assaulted Kadappa with Machete on his chest and back and inflicted grievous injuries with intention to kill him hitting on head of victim, but somehow victim manages to save himself. Even at that time, petitioner threatened to kill them. Based on said complainant, Crime no.215/2024 was registered by Bilagi Police Station at 12:20 p.m. on 03.11.2024. 3. It was firstly contended that petitioner had infact went to Police Station at around 2:00 a.m. to register complainant, but was detained him in Station. Thereafter, Police recorded statement of complainant, registered their complaint and arrested petitioner, instead of registering his complaint on arrival. In view of such serious allegation, learned High Court Government Pleader was directed to secure - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1396 CRL.P No. 100042 of 2025 instructions about CCTV footage at Police Station and to secure copy of Station House Dairy, which were produced by learned HCGP today. 4. Referring to same, learned counsel submitted that entry at 3:15 a.m. would show that petitioner and accused no.2 – Neelakantha had approached Police Station for police protection in view of incident that occurred between them and Kadappa Mallappa Hirannavar and Chanabasu Hirannavar etc. It was further submitted that entry at 8:30 a.m. indicated that police constable was sent to record statements of Kadappa Hirannavar and Chanabasu Hirannar who were under treatment at Kerudi hospital. Entry at 12:20 p.m. on same day would reveal registration of complaint given by Chanabasu Hirannavar in Crime no.215/2024. 5. Learned counsel further pointed out that though petitioner was retained by Police at Station and was available there itself, in Remand Yadi it was shown as if they enquired in Herakal village at 15:30 hours, taken to Police Station at 16:10 hours and thereafter arrested at 16:30 hours. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1396 CRL.P No. 100042 of 2025 6. It was submitted that even as per complaint filed by complainant, quarrel that had begun due to bursting of crackers was sorted out on spot. Subsequently, even if petitioner and Neelakantha went to Yalaguradappa Temple and assaulted complainants they had not filed complaint. Instead they went in group to petitioner’s house during night. 7. It was submitted, above facts would indicate irregularities in process of arresting petitioner and also that there were no substance material in allegations made against petitioner. It was submitted only reason assigned by learned District Judge while rejecting petitioner’s bail petition was that, complainant was still under treatment at hospital. But, complainant was discharged on date of order. Fact that complainant was discharged on same day would indicate that it was only with intention to ensure rejection of bail petition of petitioner. It was submitted petitioner was in defence services and had deep roots in society. He had movable and immovable properties and was a permanent resident of Herakal village. It was submitted petitioner was in custody since 03.11.2024 and therefore sought for allowing petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1396 CRL.P No. 100042 of 2025 8. Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State sought to oppose petition. It was submitted, at outset insofar as allegation that there was irregularity of procedure, it was submitted at 2:40 a.m., on 03.11.2024, an MLC intimation was received by station. Same was entered in Station House Diary. Thereafter petitioner and Neelakantha had come to station seeking protection. Same was entered in Station House Diary at 3:15 a.m. Since MLC report as well incident stated by petitioner would indicate that complainants were in hospital, they waited till morning to record statement of complainant. Thereafter at 8:30 a.m., police constable was dispatched to record statement and immediately on receipt, same was registered as crime number and corresponding entry made in Station House Diary. 9. Later as wife of accused no.3 had given complaint, same was registered in Crime No.217/2024 and entered at 9.45 p.m. Thus there was no irregularity or breach of due procedure and there was no substance in petitioner’s contention. Besides, it was submitted offences alleged against petitioner were heinous and grave. Though there were no criminal antecedents, fact that complainant was assaulted with deadly weapon - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1396 CRL.P No. 100042 of 2025 resulting in injuries would indicate commission of serious offences. It was submitted investigation was in progress. It was submitted, petitioner was resident of same village as complainant and in case of release on bail, there was likelihood of threatening or influencing prosecution witnesses and hampering investigation. Therefore, sought for rejection of bail petition. 10. Heard learned counsel. 11. From above, only point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail on conditions?” 12. Though petitioner has been apprehended on a complaint alleging serious and non bailable offences, few facts that were pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner would require special mention. As per petitioner, he went to station at 2:00 a.m. on 03.11.2024 to lodge complaint. Instead of registering his complaint, a note was made in Station House Diary at 3:15 a.m. that petitioner had come to seek for police protection in light of incident that had occurred between - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1396 CRL.P No. 100042 of 2025 petitioner and complainant’s family. Note made would indicate that petitioner had informed about incident wherein several persons were injured and taken to hospital for treatment and apprehension about retaliatory attack on petitioner. Whether such information ought to have triggered action as per law laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, but not taken and there was lapse on part of police would required consideration. 13. Secondly, no information was sent to superior officers. Only at 8:30 a.m., constable is dispatched to hospital for recording statement. On receipt of statement, there is registration of complaint at 12.20 p.m. and arrest of petitioner at 4.30 p.m. There is no entry in between about status of petitioner who was apparently present in police station. However another entry at 9.45 p.m., about registration of Crime no.217/2024 in pursuance of a complaint by wife of accused no.3 herein. 14. Perusal of Remand Yadi dated 03.11.2024 reveals that after enquiry at Herakal village at 15:30 hours, petitioner was brought to police station at 16:10 hours and arrested at - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1396 CRL.P No. 100042 of 2025 16:30 hours. Which would be appear contrary to Station House Diary entries and indicating lapse or violation of procedure. On said ground as well as on ground that even as per complainant, issue regarding lighting of fire crackers were sorted out on spot and later quarrel at Yalaguradappa Temple also sorted out there would be no need for complainants to have gone to house of petitioner during night hours in a group instead of approaching police to take action. 15. Fact that petitioner is a defence personnel and had approached police at earliest instance would favour consideration of this petition. For following reasons point for consideration is answered in affirmative. 16. Hence following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused no.1 is released on bail in Crime no.215/2024 of Bilagi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115 (2), 118 (1), 118 (2), 109, 352, 351 (2), read with Section 3(5) of BNS, subject to following conditions: a) Petitioner/accused no.1 shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1396 CRL.P No. 100042 of 2025 two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of Court. b) He shall appear before Investigating Officer for purpose of investigation as and when required and co-operate with investigation. c) He shall not threaten, tamper or with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly. d) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities. e) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings. f) A copy of this order shall be sent to Inspector General of Police, North Zone, Belagavi for appropriate enquiry into irregularities and for appropriate action if found necessary. g) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD,EM CT:PA: LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 17