- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5440 CRL.P No. 100703 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100703 OF 2025 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PRAKASH S/O. VIVEKANAND KARIYALLAPPANAVAR, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. KURUBARA ONI, LAKKUNDI, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582115. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.NANDINI SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY H.C.G.P., DHARWAD …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 483 OF BNSS 2023), SEEKING TO THAT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED MAY BE RELEASED ON BAIL IN SC NO.57/2024 I.E., IN GADAG RURAL P.S. CRIME NO.49/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 302 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.29 12:04:08 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5440 CRL.P No. 100703 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Smt.Nandini Somapour, learned counsel for Sri.B.V.Somapur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal procedure Code (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) - 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (for short ‘the BNSS’) with the following prayer: "Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be please to grant him an order of anticipatory bail in Crime No.418/2022 for an offence punishable under section 399 and 402 of IPC pending on the file of second additional chief judicial magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, at Bangalore, of the respondent police and to grant such other relief/s, in the interest of justice and equity." - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5440 CRL.P No. 100703 of 2025 3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the petition are as under: A complaint came to be filed by Smt.Rekha W/o Vivekanand Kariyallappanavar with Gadag Rural Police on 14.03.2024 which was registered in Crime No.49/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) against the petitioner who is accused No.1. 4. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that Vivekanand Kariyallappanavar had sold the ancestral land belonging to them and distributed the same among the sharers. Denying the share to the present petitioner and his brother in the share that has been allotted to said Vivekanand Kariyallappanavar in sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. When the same was demanded, the said Vivekanand Kariyallappanavar refused to pay the same. Being enraged by the same, on 14.03.2024 at about 5.00 a.m. when the complainant and the said Vivekanand Kariyallappanavar - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5440 CRL.P No. 100703 of 2025 were in their house, present petitioner along with Malleshi, came there and picked up the quarrel with them. 5. At that juncture, accused No.1 took an iron pipe and started assaulting on the legs below the knee level. He was shifted to Gadag Hospital for treatment and around 11.30 a.m., he was died in the hospital. Postmortem report shows about 13 injuries, among them injuries Nos.11 to 13 are grievous in nature. 6. Police after registering the case, thoroughly investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet and interalia arrested the accused persons. 7. Attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail is rejected by the learned trial Judge. Thereafter, accused No.1 is before this Court in this petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5440 CRL.P No. 100703 of 2025 8. Thereafter, petitioner who is accused No.1 is sole accused in the charge sheet is before this Court in this petition. 9. Smt.Nandini Somapur, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that even assuming that entire case of the prosecution is accepted to be true, petitioner has assaulted the deceased with iron pipe on the legs that too below the knee level. Therefore, offence under Section 302 of the IPC would be per se not applicable in the case on hand and therefore, sought for grant of bail. 10. She would further contend that in a matter of this nature, when eyewitness has given a statement that the assault is only below the knee level, the gravity of the offence would not be so high so as to deny the bail to the petitioner and sought for allowing the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5440 CRL.P No. 100703 of 2025 11. She would also contend that even though post mortem report shows injuries No.11 to 13, in the absence of statement given by the eyewitness, the injuries Nos.11 to 13 in the postmortem report is to be explained by the prosecution during the trial and therefore, bail is to be granted. 12. Per contra, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State opposes the bail grounds. 13. She would further contend that FIR is not an encyclopedia to include all the material facts. She would further point out that motive for the incident is spelt out in the complaint itself with clear and categorical terms and therefore, case of the petitioner at this stage atleast needs no consideration. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5440 CRL.P No. 100703 of 2025 14. She would also contend that atleast till the stage of examination of the material witnesses, bail request of the petitioner cannot be granted. 15. Taking note of the gravity of the incident and also taking note of the fact that there is already existing enmity between petitioner who is the stepson of the complainant and sought for dismissal of the petition. 16. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of material on record, it is crystal clear that from the complaint averments itself, one can make out that there existed a previous enmity on account of non- sharing of the money. 17. Admittedly, petitioner is the son born to the deceased through first wife. It is pointed out from the material on record, children from the second wife have been paid there respective shares in the ancestral land. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5440 CRL.P No. 100703 of 2025 18. In other words, if there is a denial to the share of the petitioner, course open to the petitioner was to file necessary civil proceedings. Instead, he has taken law into in his own hand and assaulted his father only for the sake of money. Sum of Rs.1,30,000/- what was the share that his father had obtained and looking to the quantum of money that needs to be distributed to the petitioner and accused No.2 (who has now not been charge sheeted) and other children, for the purpose of money, petitioner has gone to the extent of assaulting his own father that too with iron pipe. Deceased was aged 66 years and could not have offered any resistance to the brutal act of the petitioner. 19. Further, injuries No.11 to 13, needs to be explained by the prosecution during the cross of evidence. 20. Admittedly, eyewitness could not have witnessed all the assaults and the place where the assault has taken place; that too the incident has taken place at - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5440 CRL.P No. 100703 of 2025 5.00 a.m. and taking note of fact that the material witnesses are yet be examined, this Court is of the considered opinion that grounds urged in the petition would not merit to be considered at least at this stage by holding a mini trial. 21. Accordingly, following order is passed. ORDER i. Criminal Petition is rejected. ii. However, petitioner is at liberty to renew bail request within successive bail application, if there is a positive changed circumstance. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13