- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100690 OF 2025 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: 1. SRI LAXMAN S/O. DEVENDRAPPA HOOLI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. MABANUR-591129, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SRI SATISH S/O. YAMANAPPA ARIBENCHI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. JIVAPUR-591129, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SRI BASAPPA @ BASAVARAJ S/O. MUTTEPPA NAYKAR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. BENAKATTI-591117, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. SRI SHIVAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA HOOLIE, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. MABANUR-591129, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.01 10:27:50 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025 AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH P.S.I., MURGOD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS 2023 (READ WITH UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C) SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN MURGOD P.S. CRIME NO.213/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 189(2), 191(2), 103(1), 49, 61(2)(A), 238(A), 351(3) AND 190 OF BNS-2023 IN SO FAR AS PRESENT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2, 3, 4 AND 6 ARE CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short) is seeking for regular bail in Crime no.213/2024 of Murgod Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191 (2), 103 (1), 49, 61 (2) (A), 238 (A), 351 (3) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’, for short), by accused no.2, 3, 4 and 6 (petitioners). 2. Sri Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel for petitioners submitted on 09.08.2024, Kadappa Shirsangi (victim) was found dead unnaturally, in his land situated within limits of Srirangapur-Benagatti village. Initially UDR.no.39/2024 was registered by Murgod Police Station, at instance of victim’s wife Smt.Sridevi. But on 12.08.2024, a Suo-motu complaint was registered by Police Sub-Inspector stating, after receipt of provisional Post Mortem Report (‘PMR’), when he enquired about cause of death of victim, his informers had told him that as per instructions of by petitioner, who was in illicit relationship with victim’s wife, Lakshman Hooli - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025 (accused no.2), Satish Arebenchi (accused no.3), Basappa Naikar (accused no.4), Vittal Aladakatti (accused no.5) and Shivappa Hooli (accused no.6) had with common intention of murdering victim, met at between 8:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on 09.08.2024 and murdered victim in his land and thereafter tried to destroy evidence. Complaint was registered as Crime no.213/2024. 3. It was submitted, though there was no direct evidence to implicate petitioners, he was arrested on 16.08.2024 for his involvement in murder of victim. It was submitted, insofar as petitioners, prosecution case, at best was circumstantial and based on allegation that he was having affair with victim’s wife, but without any material linking him to murder. It was submitted, confession statement made by petitioners, they were implicated without any material. At outset, it was submitted, statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’ for short) would not carry any evidentiary value. 4. That apart, there were no eye-witnesses, alleging petitioners were committing murder of victim. It was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025 submitted, though in charge-sheet it was alleged, petitioners had taken supari from accused no.1 to murder victim for Rs.2,50,000/-, but there was no material to support same. Though some material was collected i.e. statements of CWs-26 to 28 was in support of ‘last seen’ theory against accused no.2, and would not implicate petitioners. Likewise, even CWs-21 and CW-30, supplier and owner of Taj Deluxe Hotel stated about seeing petitioner no.1 having dinner with victim, but same was not corroborated with any supporting material to substantiate said statement. It was further submitted, CW-20 - Mallikarjun Savalagi, who was cited as circumstantial witness had not supported prosecution case, at time of recording of his statement under Section 183 of BNSS. Thus, arraignment of petitioners was on assumptions, without any basis. 5. It was submitted, accused no.5 was granted bail by trial Court and this Court had granted bail to accused no.1 in Crl.P.no.100053/2025 disposed of on 27.01.2025. It was submitted, petitioners were permanent residents of Mabanur, Jivapur, Benkatti respectively, without any criminal antecedents. And as investigation was completed and charge- sheet filed on 16.10.2024, they would not be required for - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025 custodial interrogation. On above grounds sought for allowing petition on any conditions. 6. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent – State opposed petition. It was submitted, though initially UDR was registered in relation to death of victim, during investigation, statements recorded indicated petitioners had joined together and murdered victim as contracted by accused no.1 with petitioner no.3. Thus it was a case of supari killing and nature of offence alleged against petitioners were grave and serious. It was submitted, statements of CW-1 - complainant, CWs-1 to 17 - pancha witnesses and CWs-18 to 46 sufficiently established commission of offences by accused. It was submitted, petitioners in their voluntary statements had specifically confessed that, by taking supari from accused no.1 had contracted to murder victim, for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- It was further submitted, offence alleged was punishable with death or imprisonment for life and as all vital prosecution witnesses were from same village/locality, there was every likelihood of petitioners threatening or influencing them. On above grounds sought for rejection of petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025 7. Heard learned counsel and perused available material on record. 8. From above, only point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether petitioners are entitled for regular bail on conditions?” 9. This petition is for regular bail by accused no.2, 3, 4 and 6 in Crime no.213/2024 of Murgod Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191 (2), 103 (1), 49, 61 (2) (A), 238 (A), 351 (3) and 190 of BNS. 10. At outset, it is seen, offence under Section 189 (2) i.e. forming unlawful assembly, under Section 191 (2) for rioting, under Section 351 (3) i.e. threat to cause death and under Section 238 (A) causing disappearance of evidence are bailable. And since offences of abetment under Section 49 and criminal conspiracy to commit offence under Section 61 (2) (A) would bear same punishment as offence committed, they would attract same punishment as that of principle which under Section 103 (1) is murder punishable with death or - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025 imprisonment for life. Thus, nature of offences alleged would be heinous. 11. However, petitioners claim to have been falsely implicated, without proper basis. Prosecution case as per charge-sheet is that about 7 to 8 years earlier, victim’s wife was elected Taluk Panchayath Member. At that time, she began having affair with accused no.1, which had angered victim against accused no.1. And about 5-6 months prior to incident, accused no.1 along with petitioner no.3 and 4 who were his employees went to house of victim after consuming alcohol and threatened to kill him. Thereafter at 8:00 p.m., on 29.07.2024, petitioner met petitioner no.3 and 4 in field, wherein accused no.1 gave supari to petitioner no.3 to kill victim for Rs.2,50,000/-, and in pursuance of same, petitioner no.3 met petitioner no.1 in Weigh Bridge room at 1:00 p.m. on 08.08.2024 and conspired to kill victim. In pursuance of same, at 2:00 p.m. on 09.08.2024, petitioner no.1 went to Yaragatti on his motorcycle, met victim along with CW-20. Those three persons went to Taj Deluxe Hotel belonging to CW-30, consumed liquor and had food. Accused no.2, informed CW-20 about intention to kill victim, cautioned him against revealing it - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025 to anyone and sent him away. Thereafter he took victim to his land and got victim to sit leaning onto coconut tree, made him consume liquor and be intoxicated. Thereafter as planned, petitioners joined together and killed victim. Petitioner no.2 rolled white T-Shirt and wrapped it on neck of victim and pinned him tight against tree, while petitioner no.1 caught hold of victim’s arms, petitioner no.4 caught hold of victim’s legs. Thereafter petitioner no.2 came in front and strangulated victim to death. Thereafter they disposed of T-shirt used to commit crime in canal with intention to destroy evidence of murder. 12. Though, prosecution claims to have recorded statements of various persons, none of them are eye- witnesses. CW–1 is suo-motu complainant. CWs-2 to 17 are pancha witnesses. CW-18 is wife of victim. Though, CWs-19 to 46 are other witnesses, whose statements are recorded, material among them would be CWs-20, 30 and 21. Wherein they stated that CW-20 had dinner with accused no.2 and victim at hotel belonging to CW-30, where CW-21 was server and heard their conversation. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025 13. Indeed in his statement recorded under Section 180 of BNSS on 11.08.2024, CW-20 stated that he had dinner at Taj Deluxe Hotel along with petitioner no.1 and victim and accused no.2 confided with him about plan to murder victim, He totally omits to mention about going to Taj Deluxe Hotel on 09.09.2024 in his statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS on 16.10.2024, thereby giving rise to prima facie doubt about prosecution case. 14. Likewise statement of CWs-26 to 28 who claimed to have seen victim riding with petitioner no.1 is not corroborated with any material. At this stage, there appears to be no material or statement that would directly implicate petitioners except their confessional statement. 15. Insofar as reliability of confessional statements of co-accused, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratnu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1667, held follows: “9. As regards the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, a bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court in the case of Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan1, in Paragraph 11, this Court held thus: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025 “11. It is true that an extra-judicial confession is used against its maker but as a matter of caution, advisable for the court to look for a corroboration with the other evidence on record. In Gopal Sah v. State of Bihar [Gopal Sah v. State of Bihar, (2008) 17 SCC 128 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 466], this Court while dealing with extra-judicial confession held that extra- judicial confession is, on the face of it, a weak evidence and the Court is reluctant, in the absence of a chain of cogent circumstances, to rely on it, for the purpose of recording a conviction. In the instant case, it may be noticed that there are no additional cogent circumstances on record to rely on it. At the same time, Shambhu Singh (PW 3), while recording his statement under Section 164 CrPC, has not made such statement of extra-judicial confession (Ext. D-5) made by accused Babu Lal. In addition, no other circumstances are on record to support it.” (emphasis added) In paragraph 16 of the decision of this Court in the case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal2, this Court held thus: “16. It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025 suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. It has further been held that it is well-settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra- judicial confession. It has been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence.” (emphasis added) 16. In view of ratio that confessional statements of accused before police would require prosecution to establish that it was voluntary before establishing that contents of such confession were true and supported by other material and which inspires confidence, whether prosecution would be able to establish its charges against petitioner, would essentially be matter for trial. 17. Apart from above, accused no.5 was granted bail by trial Court and accused no.1 is enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.P.no.100053/2025 (supra). Besides, there is no denial of petitioners’ submission that they are permanent residents of - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025 Mabanur, Jivapur, Benkatti respectively, without any criminal antecedents. 18. Under above circumstances, and taking note of ratio in case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, that purpose of bail is only to secure appearance of petitioners at trial and cannot be either punitive nor preventative and deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment and further that punishment begins only after conviction, point for consideration is answered in affirmative, but subject to following conditions. Hence following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioners/accused no.2, 3, 4 and 6 are ordered to be released on bail in Crime no.213/2024 of Murgod Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191 (2), 103 (1), 49, 61 (2) (A), 238 (A), 351 (3) and 190 of BNS, subject to following conditions: a) Each of petitioners i.e. accused no.2, 3, 4 and 6 separately execute personal bonds for in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of Court. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025 b) They shall not threaten, tamper or with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly. c) They shall not indulge in any criminal activities. d) They shall be regular in attending Court proceedings. e) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie for purposes of this order and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE RH CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12