- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28226 CRL.P No. 9397 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9397 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. GANESH A.M. @ GANESH GOWDA S/O LATE MONAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT AGARTHA HOUSE KOKKADA VILLAGE & POST BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K-574 198. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN KUMAR N.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DHARMASTHALA POLICE STATION REP. BY HIGH COURT SPP BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ASMA KAUSER, ADDL.SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN COURT OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K, MANGALURU IN S.C.NO.04/2023 IN CR.NO.61/2022 DHARMASTHALA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 IPC, 1860. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28226 CRL.P No. 9397 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER The accused in S.C.No.4/2023 pending before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru arising out of Crime No.61/2022 registered by Dharmasthala Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. F.I.R. in Crime No.61/2022 was registered by Dharmasthala Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against the petitioner herein based on the first information dated 03.09.2022 received from one Yogish, S/o Kariyappa Gowda. During the course of investigation of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28226 CRL.P No. 9397 of 2025 the case, petitioner was arrested on 03.09.2022 and subsequently, remanded to judicial custody. His bail application filed before the trial Court was rejected and therefore, he had earlier approached this Court in Crl.P.No.12987/2023 which was dismissed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 31.01.2024. Thereafter, petitioner had filed a fresh bail application before this Court in Crl.P.No.11973/2024 which was dismissed on 16.01.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to move the trial Court after examination of CWs.2 and 3 is completed. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a fresh regular bail application before the trial Court in S.C.No.4/2023 which was rejected on 18.06.2025. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court in this successive bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that CWs.2 and 3 have been now examined before the trial Court as PWs.2 and 3. PW.2 has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Out of the 29 chargesheet witnesses till - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28226 CRL.P No. 9397 of 2025 date only six chargesheet witnesses are examined. The petitioner has no other criminal antecedents. He is in custody for last more than two years 10 months. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. She submits that the incident in question had taken place in the house of the petitioner and the deceased had 31 injuries on her body. The petitioner has committed a heinous offence and therefore, his prayer for grant of regular bail needs to be dismissed. 6. The material on record would go to show that after the dead body of deceased Smt. Mohini, W/o the petitioner was found, initially a case under Section 174(3) of Cr.P.C. in UDR No.50/2022 was registered. The petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased had informed the first informant, who is the president of the jurisdictional Grama Panchayath that his wife who was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28226 CRL.P No. 9397 of 2025 suffering from epilepsy and paralysis had fallen down on the morning of 30.08.2022 and sustained injures. Subsequently, first informant came to know that there was a quarrel between the couple prior to the death of deceased and therefore, he suspected foul play in the death of Mohini and under these circumstances, he had approached the police on 03.09.2022. Based on his first information, F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 03.09.2022. His earlier bail application filed before this Court in Crl.P.No.11973/2024 was rejected on 16.01.2025 reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after CWs.2 and 3 are examined before the trial Court. 7. CW.2 who is the son of the petitioner is the alleged eye witness to the incident in question. The first informant has been examined in the present case as PW.1 and CW.2 who is the alleged eye witness has been - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28226 CRL.P No. 9397 of 2025 examined in the present case as PW.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that PW.2 has not supported the case of prosecution and he has been treated as a hostile witness. The said submission is not seriously disputed by the learned Addl. SPP. Out of the 29 chargesheet witnesses till date only six chargesheet witnesses have been examined as PWs.1 to 6. The petitioner, who has no other criminal antecedents is in custody for last more than two years 10 months. Since only six chargesheet witnesses have been examined as PWs.1 to 6 out of the 29 chargesheet witnesses cited in the present case, the chances of the trial being completed and the case being disposed of on merits in the near future is very remote. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2024) 9 SCC 813, paragraph No.17 has observed as following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28226 CRL.P No. 9397 of 2025 "17. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime." 9. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter and also taking into consideration the period of petitioner's incarceration, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for regular bail is to be answered in affirmative without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case. Accordingly the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.61/2022 of Dharmasthala Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District registered for the offence - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28226 CRL.P No. 9397 of 2025 punishable under Section 302 of IPC, subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons; c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future; e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE PGG/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54