- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8217 CRL.P No. 101996 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101996 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI. SUBHAS @ HANUMANTH, S/O. AMANSIDD SINGADE, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. SAMBARGI-590032, NAGANOOR P.B. ROAD, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. L. S. SULLAD, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ATHANI P.S., REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE ABOVE SAID PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 ON REGULAR BAIL IN C.C. NO.2830/2024 (CRIME NO.245/2024 ATHANI P.S) U/S.49, 103(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 61(2), 351(3) R/W. 190 BNS ACT, 2023 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ATHANI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8217 CRL.P No. 101996 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. L.S. Sullad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) seeking to grant bail in connection with Crime No.245/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: On 12.07.2024, the first informant lodged a complaint alleging that the accused had conspired to commit, and had indeed committed the murder of Manik Keshaw Kadam. According to the complaint, on 11.07.2024, the informant’s father had left on his motorcycle bearing - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8217 CRL.P No. 101996 of 2025 registration number KA-23/K-5933 for some personal work. At around 6:30 p.m., while the informant was in the village, he received a phone call from one Sri Deepak Prabhakar Deshpande, who informed him that his father had met with an accident and had been brought to Deshpande Hospital. He was asked to come immediately. Upon reaching the hospital, the informant saw that his father had sustained injuries to the back of his head, back, and hands. He was unconscious. The doctors, after providing initial treatment, referred him for advanced care. However, he succumbed to his injuries and passed away on the same day. Based on these facts, the first informant filed a complaint, which led to the registration of an FIR and the initiation of a criminal investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent, has not committed any offence, and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was argued that the contents of the complaint, taken at face value, do not disclose any role of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8217 CRL.P No. 101996 of 2025 petitioner in the alleged crime. The complaint appears to be an afterthought, filed with the intention of falsely implicating the petitioner. It is further submitted that the complaint was lodged after consultation with others, and the petitioner was deliberately named to harass him. The counsel pointed out that there are pending civil disputes involving accused Nos.1 and 2, and in order to exert pressure or settle scores, the petitioner has been unnecessarily dragged into this criminal case. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner is 24 years old, is the sole breadwinner of his family, and has no criminal antecedents. He has deep roots in society, a permanent address, and owns both movable and immovable properties. It is also submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed, the investigation is complete, and no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petition be allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8217 CRL.P No. 101996 of 2025 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent – State contended that the offences alleged against the petitioner are grave and heinous in nature, and are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It was further submitted that there exists a prima facie case against the petitioner, and the offences are non-bailable. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is a likelihood that he may tamper with prosecution witnesses and interfere with the fair conduct of the trial. Accordingly, the learned HCGP prayed for the rejection of the bail petition. 7. As per the prosecution case, the motive for murder was litigation in pursuance of an earlier sale transaction and failure to meet obligations agreed thereunder, as the victim was supporting the opponents of the accused in the said litigation involving sale transaction between complainant and accused families. However, said sale transaction is dated 26.09.2003 and its recitals indicate receipt of entire sale consideration without reference to any pending litigation. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8217 CRL.P No. 101996 of 2025 8. So far as overt acts against the petitioner – accused No.2 is concerned, it is alleged that he drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and intentionally dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. Hence, he sustained injuries. As per the postmortem examination report, the cause of death is due to a head injury sustained in the accident. As per the prosecution, there is CCTV footage. However, the CCTV footage would merely show the movement of accused No.2 at the time of accident. As per the prosecution version, CW20 witnessed the petitioner intentionally caused accident and informed same to CW-32/35 on 11.07.2024, immediately after the accident and thereafter CW-32/35 informed the complainant. It is also version of prosecution that, apart from CW-20, even CWs26 to 28 are eye-witnesses to the incident, but none of them informed the police or victim’s family. Admittedly, the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. If the bail is granted to the petitioner, the question of tampering with the prosecution - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8217 CRL.P No. 101996 of 2025 witnesses would not arise. Considering the nature of offences, gravity of offences and the antecedent character of the petitioner, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The criminal petition is hereby allowed. ii. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. iii. The petitioner shall appear before the Court regularly. iv. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. v. The petitioner shall not involve himself in any such offences in future. Violation of any of the above conditions, will entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail. NOTE: The above observations are made, only for the purpose of disposal of this petition. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE Rsh /ct-an List no.: 1 sl no.: 27