- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5056 CRL.P No. 100927 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100927 OF 2025 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MANISH KIRAN BORKAR AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. BAPUJI NAGAR, NEW MARKET YARD, DUBBANSASHI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NAGARAJNAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.C. CHAKALABBI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (BY KARWAR TOWN POLICE STATION, KARWAR) REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 483 OF BNSS, 2023 (R/W. U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C.) SEEKING TO ENLAARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN KARWAR TOWN PS CRIME NO. 85/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SECTIONS 189(2), 115(2), 191(1)(2)(3), 117(4), 103(2), 352, 351(1), 239 R/W. 190 OF BNS PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM KARWAR. ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.04.01 14:56:16 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5056 CRL.P No. 100927 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Nagaraj Nayak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.A.C.Chakalabbi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Petition is filed under Section 483 by Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter ‘BNS’ for short). 3. Facts in brief which are at most necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 4. Upon the complaint lodged by Sharad Prabhakar Borkar, Karwar Town Police registered a case in Crime No.85/2024 on 07.09.202 for the offences punishable under Section 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 103, 352, 190 of BNS. 5. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that on 07.09.2024, Ganesha festival was arranged in the house - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5056 CRL.P No. 100927 of 2025 of the deceased. Relatives had arrived in the house and all of them made preparations for installing the Ganesha idol in the old house at Saikatta. At about 11:00 a.m., they had been to procure the Ganesha idol and they returned to the house and installed the Ganesha idol. 6. At that juncture, Prabhakar enquired the complainant group about non-accounting of Rs.8,000/- which has been collected in the previous year Ratan Borker told that said amount of Rs.8,000/- is appropriated towards the expenses. 7. At that juncture, there was an oral altercation contending that the amount was collected by contribution and how it can be appropriated unilaterally. 8. At that juncture, Rathan slapped the complainant. As a result, there was commotion. The nephews of the complainant viz., Kiran Borkar, Prashant Borkar, Santosh Borkar made Sandesh to fall down. At that juncture Kiran Borkar came there with a knife and stabbed Sandesh who is younger brother of the complainant on the chest. Because of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5056 CRL.P No. 100927 of 2025 the stab injury, Sandesh fell down and the incident has taken place at about 2.15 p.m. Immediately, injured was shifted to Karwar Civil Hospital in the car. Doctor who examined declared that he has brought dead. 9. Based on the complaint, police have registered the case and have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. 10. The request made by the petitioner for grant of bail is turned down by the learned District Judge by order dated 20.01.2025. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court. 11. Sri.Nagaraj Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition contend that incident has occurred at the spur of the movement and it is not premeditated incident. Hence, the offence though alleged against the petitioner is for the murder, at the most, it could be scaled down to a homicidal death not amounting to murder. Therefore, continuation of the petitioner in the judicial custody is no longer warranted. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5056 CRL.P No. 100927 of 2025 12. He would further contend that when there was a demand as to accounting of Rs.8,000/- which was collected in the previous year Ganesh festival celebration, ugly incident has taken place and there was a commotion and in the spur of the movement, the incident had occurred. Therefore, there was no intention of taking away the life of Sandesh by the accused. Further co-accused having been granted bail, the present accused is also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity and sought for allowing the petition. 13. It is also contended that single injury has resulted in death of the deceased whereby it could be inferred that the incident is not a premeditated incident nor there is a very strong motive for the incident and accordingly, sought for grant of bail. 14. Per contra, Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned HCGP opposed the bail grounds by contending that very fact that the stab injury on the chest region, the injured declared dead soon after the incident in the Karwar Civil Hospital establishes the gravity in the incident. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5056 CRL.P No. 100927 of 2025 15. She would further contend that when there was only a oral altercation, it is Rathan who slapped the complainant and when the deceased tried to intervene, it is the present petitioner, who stabbed him on the chest region with the knife itself would be sufficient enough to attribute intention in taking away the life of Sandesh by the petitioner and thus sought for dismissal of the petition. 16. She would also contend that eye witnesses have given their statement before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which would be kept on higher pedestal than a statement recorded by the investigation officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, prima facie the material on record is sufficient enough to deny the grant of bail to the petitioner at least at this stage. 17. She would also contend that if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility of tampering of the prosecution witnesses. 18. She also contends that test of parity is not applicable to the petitioner inasmuch as the other accused - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5056 CRL.P No. 100927 of 2025 persons who have been granted bail, there were no overt acts which would come in the way of grant of bail and thus sought for dismissal of the petition. 19. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 20. On such perusal of the material on record, the death of the Sandesh who is brother of the complainant is not in dispute. However, it is the case of the petitioner that there was no intention in causing the death of Sandesh and a single blow with the knife has resulted in the incident which is at the spur of moment. Therefore, gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner has been reduced to considerable extent. 21. It is the settled principles of law and requires no emphasis at the time of deciding the bail requests, Courts are precluded from holding a mini trial to find out the merits or demerits of the case as the same may prejudice the case of the parties during the trial one way or the other. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5056 CRL.P No. 100927 of 2025 22. Suffice to say that the prima facie materials available on record especially the assault made by the petitioner with the knife on the chest region would definitely disentitle petitioner from obtaining an order of grant of bail by resorting to the special powers vested in this Court under Section 483 BNSS at least at this stage. 23. Further, since the material witnesses are yet to be examined, as the trial has not commenced, granting of the bail at this stage may result in threatening the prosecution witnesses as is contended by the prosecution cannot be ruled out. 24. More so, witnesses are none other than the relatives of the deceased. Further, in the absence of any other motive that could be attributed to the prosecution witnesses, why they would falsely implicate the present petitioner in the incident is a question that has also to be adjudicated by the trial Court during the trial. 25. On cumulative consideration of the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5056 CRL.P No. 100927 of 2025 opinion that at least at this stage, petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. 26. It is always open for the petitioner to renew his request for grant of bail if there is a positive changed circumstance in the case. Reserving such liberty for the petitioner, following order is passed: ORDER Bail petition is rejected. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV-upto Para-7 HMB- Para 8 to end CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20