- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5553 CRL.P No. 100842 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100842 OF 2025 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. H. ESHWARAPPA S/O. LATE SHANKARAPPA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. 6TH CROSS, RAGHU PLOT, S.R. NAGARA, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583203. 2. DEVARAJ S/O. H. ESHWARAPPA, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. 6TH CROSS, RAGHU PLOT, S.R. NAGARA, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583203. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HOSPET TOWN POLICE STATION, BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION. 483 OF BNSS, SEEKING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE PETITION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ON BAIL IN RESPECT OF IN C.C.NO. 397/2024 PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAPETE CRIME NO.165/2024 REGISTERED WITH HOSAPETE TOWN POLICE STATION UNDER SECTIONS 103(1) AND 238 R/W. SECTION 3(5) OF BNS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.02 11:21:14 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5553 CRL.P No. 100842 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Anandkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Petition under Section 483 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: “To allow the above petition and direct the respondent herein to release the petitioners/accused no.1 and 2 on bail in respect of in C.C.No. 397/2024 Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Hosapete Crime No.165/2024 registered with Hosapete town Police Station under Sections 103(1) and 238 R/W. Section 3(5) of BNS.” 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1 Police Sub-inspector of Kamalapura Police Station by name Sri.Santhosh Dabbin received a - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5553 CRL.P No. 100842 of 2025 credible information on 22.08.2024 that some dead body is found in LLC power canal. The said information was given by Sri Mahammed Yunus, S/o Abbdul Rasheed who was resident of HLC Sub-division, T.B. Dam. 3.2 As per the information said Santosh along with other sub staff viz., Snehalatha went near the place and found that a dead body was floating in the canal with a yellow coloured T-shirt. With the help of others, the dead body was recovered and noticed that the dead body was decomposed. Since there was no other clue with regard to the dead body as it had already decomposed, he took steps to register a case in UDR No.9/2024. 3.3 After conducting the post-mortem, the dead body was also cremated. The clothes found on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5553 CRL.P No. 100842 of 2025 dead body and other identification marks were noted and clothes were preserved. 3.4 Later on, it is revealed that the dead body was the son of the first petitioner and brother of the second petitioner. Pertinently, the petitioners did not lodge any missing complaint. 3.5 On enquiry with the wife of first petitioner, she has revealed that Siddharth was of mentally unsound since 10 years and he had been treated in several hospitals. Despite best treatment, his behaviour was not changed and his hands were being tied through out the day. Whenever, his hands are untied, he used become violent and used to cause fist injury and used to indulge in destructive activities. 3.6 It is her further statement that she was also assaulted by said Siddharth, few days earlier to the incident. It is her specific statement that in order to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5553 CRL.P No. 100842 of 2025 see that he would not damage the articles further and not indulge in such similar activities to avoid causing injuries to the general public, these petitioners decided to done away with the life of Siddarth and took Siddartha on their motorcycle and his hands being were tied and they returned home without Siddharth. 3.7 Based on her complaint, on collection of other relevant materials, police converted the UDR No.9/2004 in to FIR in Crime No.71/2024 on 22.08.2024 and for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) and 238 R/W Section 3(5) of BNS against the present petitioners and conducted the investigation inter alia arrested the petitioners. Voluntary statements of the petitioners were recorded, motorcycle was also seized and place where they pushed the Siddharth into the canal, a panchanama - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5553 CRL.P No. 100842 of 2025 was conducted and later on, charge sheet came to be filed for the aforesaid offences. 3.8 Attempt made by the petitioners to obtain an order of grant of bail is turned out by the learned Sessions judge in C.Misc.No.5765/2024. Thereafter petitioners are before this Court. 4. Sri.K.Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition vehemently contended that death of Siddharth is not in dispute. In fact, when Siddharth was being taken to the hospital, he escaped from the clutches of the petitioners and ran away from the spot and these two petitioners kept search for him in the hospital and in and around places and also in the relatives houses. They were under the impression that Siddharth would return one day or the other and therefore they are innocent of the offences alleged against them and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5553 CRL.P No. 100842 of 2025 police have concocted a false story only with an intention to have monetary gain taking advantage of unnatural death of Siddharth and sought for grant of bail. 5. He would further contend that the fact that a case came to be registered in UDR No.9/2024 itself establish that there was no iota of material evidence which would be sufficient enough to file charge sheet for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners herein and sought for grant of bail. 6. He would also contend that since the charge sheet is filed, destruction of evidence is impermissible and thus, continuation of the petitioners in judicial custody is no longer warranted. 7. He would also contend that the entire case rest on the circumstantial evidence and wife of the first petitioner has not given any such statement and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5553 CRL.P No. 100842 of 2025 the police have concocted her statement and therefore, petitioners to be enlarged on bail. 8. Per contra, Smt.Girija Hiremath would contend that why would the wife of the first petitioner being mother of Siddhartha would give a false statement is a question that needs to be considered. 9. It is also her case that mother of the deceased is the last seen witness when Siddhartha was alive. At least till her examination before the Court, bail request of the petitioners cannot be entertained and sought for dismissal of the petition. 10. She would also contend that there is no rule that in every case which rests on circumstantial evidence, accused is to be enlarged on bail and therefore sought for dismissal of the petition. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5553 CRL.P No. 100842 of 2025 record, it is crystal clear that Siddhartha died on account of drowning as could be seen from the post- mortem report. Name of Siddhartha was also not revealed as the information that has been received by the Police is unknown dead body is found floating in LLC power canal. 12. Based on the said information, it is the Santosh and Snehalatha who went to the spot and got the dead body removed from the canal and registered the case in UDR No.9/2024 and thereafter conducted the post-mortem and then cremated the body as the identity of the dead body was not noticed. 13. It is pertinent to note that if the theory that is put forward on behalf of the petitioners is to be accepted, being the father and younger brother of the Siddhartha, when he got escaped from the clutches while taking him to the hospital, at least next day the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5553 CRL.P No. 100842 of 2025 petitioners would have filed a missing complaint before the police. 14. More so, when the deceased was of mentally unsound person and had the violent attitude. Keeping quiet till the dead body was traced by the Santosh being PSI of Kamalapura police station is a circumstance that has to be explained by the petitioners during the trial. Even after the UDR came to be registered till the identity of the dead body was received, petitioners were keeping quiet. 15. Pertinent to note that is the mother of the Siddhartha who being the wife of first petitioner and mother of second petitioner would not falsely implicate petitioners in the incident. More so, Siddhartha being the mentally unsound person. 16. Therefore, without holding the mini trial, when the material on record is appreciated, at least at this stage, the grounds urged in the petition cannot be - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5553 CRL.P No. 100842 of 2025 countenanced in law having regard to the attendant facts and circumstance of the case. 17. It is always open for the petitioner to renew his request for grant of bail with a successive bail application, if there is a positive changed circumstance, especially after the examination material witnesses. 18. Reserving such liberty for the petitioners, following order is passed: ORDER Criminal Petition is rejected. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11