- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4908 CRL.P No. 100991 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100991 OF 2025 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: YALLAPPA S/O. FAKEERAPPA KURI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. JAKKALI, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG-582119. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAY K. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH NAREGAL POLICE STATION, RON CIRCLE, DIST. GADAG. R/BY. ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 483 OF BNSS 2023, SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.1) ON BAIL IN SESSIONS CASE NO.85/2024 (ARISING FROM NAREGAL P.S. CRIME NO.49/2024) FOR THE OFFENCES U/SECTIONS 103(1), 109, 352, 49, 351(2) R/W. SECTION 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.03.27 15:31:33 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4908 CRL.P No. 100991 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Vijay K. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(hereinafter for short ’BNSS’), 2023 with the following prayer: “To enlarge the petitioner (accused no.1) on bail in Sessions Case No.85/2024 (arising from Naregal P.S. Crime No.49/2024) for the offences unde sections 103(1), 109, 352, 49, 351(2) R/W. Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag.” 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the petition are as under: 3.1 Complaint came to be lodged by Hanamawwa Basappa Mukkannavar with Naregal Police on 13.08.2024 which was registered in Crime No.49/2024. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4908 CRL.P No. 100991 of 2025 3.2 Gist of the complaint averments reveal that the petitioner and complainant are neighbors and with regard to the steps which were situated in front of the house of complainant, there was a dispute. According to the accused, the said steps were interfering with the peaceful possession of their property and in that regard there was a previous enmity. When the matter stood thus, on 12.08.2024 at 5.30 pm, when husband of the complainant viz., Basappa Hanumappa Mukkanavar had put the harvested crops in front of his house for drying, accused Nos.1 and 2 came in a car and in order to gain entry to their house they honked their car. Said Basappa Hanamappa Mukkannavar did not clear the way and put deaf ears to the honking. 3.3 Being enraged by the conduct of Basappa Hanamappa Mukkanavar, accused persons got out of the car and picked up the quarrel with said Basappa by abusing him in filthy language. First accused (petitioner) pulled out an iron rod and assaulted said Basappa. Quarrel was pacified and injured was shifted to hospital. Despite best treatment, Basappa lost his life. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4908 CRL.P No. 100991 of 2025 3.4 Based on the complaint, Naregal Police registered the case against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(2), 109, 352, r/w Section 3(5) of BNS against four accused persons. 3.5 During the course of investigation since Basappa died, Police invoked Section 103(1) of BNS and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 352, 351(2) R/W 3(5) of BNS-2023. 3.6 Request made by the petitioner seeking grant of bail is turned down by the learned trial judge. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Sri.Vijay K. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment and it is the deceased who is responsible for the incident inasmuch as he had covered the road and did not make the way for the accused to reach their house. 5. He would further contend that since the incident had occurred in spur of the moment, the act attributable to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4908 CRL.P No. 100991 of 2025 accused can be treated as homicidal death without any intention and therefore, the gravity of the offence is not so high so as to deny the bail request of the petitioner by resorting to the special powers vested in this 483 BNSS. 6. He also emphasise that accused No.2 to 4 have been granted bail and therefore, on the ground of parity, petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. 7. He would further contend that since charge sheet is filed, continuation of the petitioner in judicial custody is no longer warranted. 8. Per contra, Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail conditions. 9. She would further contend that for the trivial incident, on account of the previous enmity, present petitioner has gone the extent of assaulting the deceased with iron rod on his head and postmortem report would reveal that death is due to respiratory failure on account of head injury. 10. She would further contend that the eye witnesses to the incident and another injured in the very same incident - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4908 CRL.P No. 100991 of 2025 have stated in categorical terms before the investigation officer with graphic details as to how the incident had occurred and therefore, the request for grant of bail to the petitioner cannot be countenanced in law by this Court at least, at this stage and sought for dismissal of the petition. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, Basappa being injured having been shifted to hospital, lost his life. Postmortem examination report would reveal that the death of the Basappa is on account of respiratory failure, resulting out of the head injury caused to him. Another injured in the same incident i.e., wife of deceased viz., Hanamavva has also stated about the incident with graphic details. 13. In a matter of this nature, especially when the trial is yet to commence, Court entertaining the bail request is precluded from holding a mini trial to find out the merits or demerits of the case as the same may prejudice the rights of the parties during the trial one way or the other. 14. Thus, desisting from holding mini trial, when the material on record is appreciated in the light of the grounds - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4908 CRL.P No. 100991 of 2025 urged in the bail petition, it is crystal clear that the incident had occurred on the fateful day at about 5.30 p.m. Basappa- deceased had spread the harvested crop in the front yard covering portion of the road for drying the crops. 15. It is at that juncture, accused Nos.1 and 2 came in a car and in order to get the free way to reach their house, they honked. However, Basappa did not care for signal made by accused Nos.1 and 2, which resulted in accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulting Basappa. Accused No.1 took out an iron rod and assaulted Basappa on the head besides abusing in the filthy language. Hanamavva came to rescue her husband, she was also assaulted and she also got injured. Basappa was shifted to hospital, but he succumbed to the head injury. 16. These aspects of the matter are borne out of record, not only by the statements of the injured witness and eye witness but also from the documentary evidence on record which in the considered opinion of this Court would prima facie act against the interest of the petitioner and therefore, the same is sufficient enough at least at this stage to deny the request for grant of bail. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4908 CRL.P No. 100991 of 2025 17. Further, grant of bail to the accused Nos.2 to 4 cannot be treated as a ground of parity for the present petitioner to seek an order of grant of bail, having regard to the specific overt act attributed to the present petitioner and the other accused persons. Therefore, test of parity insofar as petitioner is concerned would fail in the case on hand. 18. It is always open for the petitioner to renew his request for grant of bail, if there is a positive changed circumstance in his case by filing successive bail request. 19. Reserving such liberty for the petitioner, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Bail petition is rejected. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12