- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3666 CRL.P No. 100371 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100371 OF 2025 [439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: SRI VENKATESH S/O. DEVENDRA NAIK, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. VASAN TANDA, POST: K.KALLAHALLI, TAL. HARAPANAHALLI-583131, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR. … PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HIREKERUR POLICE STATION, NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN S.C. NO.27/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI SITTING AT RANEBENNUR (CRIME NO.186/2023 REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201 OF IPC, BY THE RESPONDENT HIREKERUR POLICE STATION). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.02.24 14:25:54 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3666 CRL.P No. 100371 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition by accused (petitioner), is under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short,) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.186/2023 by Hirekerur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short). 2. Sri Srinanda A. Pachhapure, learned counsel for petitioner submitted prosecution case was that on 05.11.2023, Smt.Netrabayi (complainant) filed complaint stating she was married to Shivyanaik Lamani and residing with her children at Yettinahalli village. Her husband had gone to Kavesheeme for livelihood four months earlier. She stated her sister Geeta (victim) was married to Venkatesh Lamani (petitioner) and they had a son. About one year after their marriage, petitioner began quarrelling with victim for flimsy reasons. And about two months earlier, petitioner had left victim and her son at complainant’s house, and went to Kavesheeme for earning livelihood. However, he was frequently seen quarrelling with victim over phone. On 04.11.2023, he came at 12:00 p.m. with eggs and asked victim to prepare egg-sambar. Victim refused - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3666 CRL.P No. 100371 of 2025 as non-veg. food was not cooked on Saturdays at complainant’s home. Petitioner left home in anger. Later that night, complainant’s son brought him home for dinner. 3. Next morning at 9:00 a.m. on 05.11.2023, complainant and her son left for work. Victim’s son also accompanied them leaving victim alone with petitioner at home. Later, her son came run and informed her, when he went home with grain sack, he saw victim on floor with her hands and legs tied and her mouth stuffed with veil with other end tied around her neck. He also stated that she was not responding to his voice. On coming home immediately, she saw her sister. Hearing her cries, even neighbors assembled. They found her dead with her hands and legs tied with rope and one end of veil stuffed inside her mouth and other end tied her neck. She found blood clot below her left eye. Alleging that petitioner who had come home on 04.11.2023, quarreled with victim over food and next day had murdered her by strangulating her with veil, complaint was filed. Based on said complaint, Crime no.186/2023 was registered for offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3666 CRL.P No. 100371 of 2025 4. At outset, it was submitted there were no eyewitnesses to alleged incident and prosecution case was purely circumstantial. Even statement of complainant’s son- CW.12, who was first person to have seen victim dead did not implicated. It was submitted even as per charge sheet, CW.13 had merely seen petitioner speaking to victim who was his wife. It was also pointed out that statement of CW-13 recorded 27 days after incident would not be reliable. In any case, statement would not directly implicate petitioner. It was submitted, charge sheet failed to make out case of motive for murder. It was submitted entire case of prosecution was heavily dependent on confessional statement of petitioner, without any recovery. It was submitted, confessional statement would be weak form of evidence. It was submitted, there was no explanation for not recording statements of any neighbours, who would have been natural witnesses to incident. It was submitted petitioner was arrested on 06.11.2023 and investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed citing 31 witnesses. Therefore, there would be no need for custodial interrogation and conclusion of trial was likely to be delayed. On above grounds sought for allowing petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3666 CRL.P No. 100371 of 2025 5. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent – State opposed petition. It was submitted, offences alleged against petitioner were murder and destruction of evidence attracting capital punishment therefore nature of offences was heinous. It was submitted though there were no eyewitnesses, material collected during investigation implicated petitioner. There were specific overt-acts against petitioner in complaint. Petitioner was alleged to have murdered his wife by strangulation. Cause of death mentioned in postmortem examination report corroborated same. Body of victim was found with her limbs tied with rope and one end of veil tied around her neck with other end stuffed into her mouth indicating clear intention as well as planning murder. It was submitted charges were also supported by voluntary statement of petitioner who admitted to have committed murder. It was further submitted statements of CW.12 nephew of victim and CW.13 brother-in-law of victim corroborated same. Thus, there was sufficient prima facie material against petitioner. It was further submitted since petitioner was relative of complainant and main prosecution witnesses, there was every likelihood of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3666 CRL.P No. 100371 of 2025 intimidating or tampering witnesses. On above grounds, sought for rejection of bail. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 7. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail on conditions?” 8. This petition is for regular bail in Crime no.186/2023 by Hirekerur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 9. Offences alleged are murder under Section 302 of IPC punishable with death or imprisonment for life; destruction of evidence under Section 201 of IPC punishable with imprisonment for 7 years. Since offence under Section 302 of IPC would attract capital punishment, nature of offences would be heinous. 10. Since there are no eyewitnesses, prosecution case against petitioner would be circumstantial. As per charge sheet prosecution appears to be relying on confessional statement of petitioner, which would be acceptable as material only on - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3666 CRL.P No. 100371 of 2025 compliance of conditions as held in Ratnu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1667 and Randeep Singh @ Rana and Anr. v. State of Haryana, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3383. 11. Statement of CW.13 sought to be relied upon by prosecution was recorded 27 days after incident, while statement of CW.12 would not directly implicate petitioner for offence of murder. No recovery at instance of petitioner is shown. Further, investigation was completed while petitioner was in custody and charge sheet filed on 10.01.2024. Therefore, there would appear no further need for custodial interrogation of petitioner. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Deshraj @ Musa v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2709 reiterating Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2012 (1) SCC 49, held purpose of bail is only to secure presence of accused during trial and not for punishing under trial as until conviction there would be presumption of innocence. 12. Under above circumstances, point for consideration is answered in affirmative. Hence, following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3666 CRL.P No. 100371 of 2025 ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner - accused is ordered to be released on bail in S.C.No.27/2024 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri sitting at Ranebennur (Crime no.186/2023 by Hirekerur Police Station) for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, subject to following conditions: a) Petitioner/accused 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 not threaten, tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly. c) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities. d) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings. e) 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.: 22