- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2030 CRL.P No. 100041 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100041 OF 2025 [439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: SRI SUBRAHMANYA S/O. NAGARAJ YAILGAR, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. TEGGIN LAYOUT, GADAG, DIST. GADAG. … PETITIONER (BY SRI ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, THROUTH PSI GADAG TOWN POLICE STATION, DIST. GADAG. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 483 OF BNSS ACT, SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.0087/2024 (SC 83/2024) REGISTERED BEFORE GADAG TOWN POLICE STATION DIST. GADAG FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 103(1) OF BNSS PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, GADAG. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.02.01 16:05:16 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2030 CRL.P No. 100041 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.87/2024 by Gadag Town Police Station, Gadag, for offence punishable under Section 103 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) by sole accused (petitioner). 2. Sri Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel for petitioner submitted case of prosecution was that Tarun Mulimani filed complaint at 9:45 p.m. on 18.07.2024 stating that he was staying with his father, mother and brother. His father was doing coolie work. Petitioner was resident of same locality and was friend of complainant. On ground that petitioner was addicted to vices, his father advised him against friendship with petitioner, he had also advised petitioner to avoid friendship with his son which led him to have grudge against complainant’s father. 3. It was stated, complainant’s father also suffered from epilepsy and used to consume liquor. Three days earlier - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2030 CRL.P No. 100041 of 2025 on 15.07.2024 at about 10:00 p.m., his father went out after dinner, to get bidi, when their relative Shekar came there and informed them about complainant’s father lying with grievous injures behind his right ear. Immediately, they went to spot and took him to District hospital, Gadag. And as per advice he was taken in ambulance to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi for higher treatment at about 0:31 hours on 16.07.2024. But at about 2:47 p.m. his father (victim) died during treatment. Since, doctors and police informed complainant’s mother that victim’s body would be handed over after formalities, she came back to Gadag to inform relatives. After Post Mortem when body was handed over, they cremated it at Gadag. 4. Until then, Gadag Town Police had registered incident as UD.no.18/2024 (‘UDR’). But on 18.07.2024, complainant heard Rohit, Parashuram and Mahesh saying that on 15.07.2024, when his father traversing narrow path in front of petitioner’s house, there was quarrel between victim and petitioner. They saw, petitioner assaulting victim with knife near his right ear. On hearing victim scream, they went near and saw petitioner running away with knife in his hand. Fearing for themselves, they went home. Based on said information, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2030 CRL.P No. 100041 of 2025 complaint was filed and registered as Crime no.87/2024 by Gadag Town Police. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there were several contradictions in prosecution case. Firstly, as per complainant, after incident he along with his mother went to spot and saw victim with injuries. In case, injuries were caused due to assault with knife, they would noticed it and reported to authorities when victim was taken to hospital. Strangely, until three days after incident, it was registered merely as UDR as none found anything suspicious. Secondly, only wife accompanied victim to KIMS and after being informed about death, she returned to Gadag and went back with relatives, received body, brought it to Gadag and cremated it, which gave sufficient time for weaving a story to implicate petitioner. 6. Thirdly, in Post Mortem Report (‘PMR’), injuries noted were not cut lacerated wounds (‘CLW’). Fourthly, eye- witnesses claimed to be from same locality, keeping quiet for days after incident because of fear, but talking about it in public three days later, does not appear to be normal. Lastly, as per report of FSL, materials recovered namely murder weapon and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2030 CRL.P No. 100041 of 2025 clothes of petitioner did not have any blood stains. Under above circumstances, as petitioner was arrested on 19.07.2024 and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed on 27.08.2024, petitioner would not be required for any further custodial interrogation. Moreover, prosecution intended to examine 24 witnesses, which would delay conclusion of trial. It was further submitted, petitioner was aged 20 years and a law abiding citizen without any antecedents earning his livelihood as coolie and a permanent resident of Gadag along with his family. Hence, he was entitled for bail and rejection of bail application by learned District Judge was only on ground that there were eye-witnesses. 7. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent – State opposed petition. At outset, it was submitted offence alleged against petitioner was murder which was heinous carrying capital punishment. It was further submitted, there were eye-witnesses to incident and their statements recorded during investigation would implicate petitioner beyond doubt. It was submitted, Investigating Officer had recorded statements of 24 witnesses and same was sufficient to prove charges. It was submitted, said witnesses - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2030 CRL.P No. 100041 of 2025 had supported prosecution even in their statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. Moreover, as all prosecution witnesses were from same locality, and as trial was to commence shortly, in case petitioner is released on bail, there was every likelihood of petitioner influencing prosecution witnesses. On above grounds, sought rejection of petition. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 9. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail on conditions?” 10. This is a petition for regular bail is by sole accused charged with commission of murder. Indeed, maximum sentence for said offence includes death or imprisonment for life and is a heinous in nature. 11. As per prosecution case, advise by victim not to befriend victim’s son had planted grudge against victim and altercation at time of incident led to petitioner assaulting victim with knife, but in PMR there are no slash or CLW wounds noted on body of victim. Investigating Officer has not obtained - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2030 CRL.P No. 100041 of 2025 opinion of doctor or FSL about possibility of knife causing injuries noted in PMR. 12. At outset it is seen police initially registered UDR with nothing suspicious being noted either by victim’s family or even by doctors, who treated victim at District Hospital, Gadag and at KIMS, Hubballi. Prima facie comparison of statements of eye-witnesses shows certain variation, apart from conduct, keeping quiet for three days after incident. FSL report does not report blood stains on them. Moreover, cause of death noted in PMR is “death is due to septicaemia as a consequence of injury sustained to head”, inviting attention to observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.N. Kavatakar v. State of Karnataka, reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 304; Jharmal v. State of Haryana reported in 1994 (2) SCC 551 and Bunnilal Chaudhary v. State of Bihar reported in (2006) 10 SCC 639, whether charge under Section 302 would sustain in case of death as a result of septicemia. Therefore, prosecution case would appear more circumstantial than ocular. However, same would be a matter for trial, which is likely to be delayed to do number of witnesses sought to be examined. Taking note of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2030 CRL.P No. 100041 of 2025 case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, that purpose of bail is to secure appearance of accused at trial and it can be neither punitive nor preventative and that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment and punishment begins only after conviction, until which every accused would be deemed innocent, would prompt finding in affirmative on point for consideration, but by imposing conditions as would alleviate prosecution concerns. Hence, following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail in SC no.83/2024 pending before Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag [Crime no.87/2024 by Gadag Town Police Station for offences punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS], subject to following conditions: a) He shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of Court. b) He shall make himself available for purpose of investigation as and when required and he shall co-operate with investigation. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2030 CRL.P No. 100041 of 2025 c) He shall not threaten, tamper with, influence or attempt to contact any of prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly. d) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings. e) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities. f) He shall not leave jurisdiction of above Court, without prior permission. g) It is clarified that views expressed herein are purely on prima facie consideration for purposes of this stage and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD/RH CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10