- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6863 CRL.P No. 101581 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101581 OF 2025 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. VINAYAK S/O. SRI NARAYAN BHAT AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. SHEDKULI, BHATRAKERI, HADINBAL, TALUK: HONNAVAR, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA-581361. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.V. NAGESH SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HONNAVAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ORDER THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ENLARGE ON REGULAR BAIL IN RELATION TO THE CASE IN S.C. NO.12/2024 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.244/2023 HONNAVAR P.S. PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA, FOR OFFENCES WHICH ARE MADE PENAL UNDER SECTIONS 302, 307, 504, 109 R/W. SECTION 34 OF THE IPC, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.25 16:09:46 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6863 CRL.P No. 101581 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 Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel for Sri.Raghavendra K, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 2. Successive bail request of the petitioner in respect of the Crime No.244/2023, which is now pending in S.C.No.12/2024 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karwar. 3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the petition are as under: Based on the complaint lodged by Vasant Ishwar Naik, Honnavara Police registered a case for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). 4. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that on 28.11.2023 at about 6:30 PM., when complainant - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6863 CRL.P No. 101581 of 2025 and his friend Janardhan Keshav Naik were present near the Areangadi Circle, Janardhan Keshav Naik received a phone call from Ashok Parameshwar Kodalamane @ Bhat stating that near Airoli cycle shop, the present petitioner reached near the said shop at around 7:00 P.M., and enquired Janardhan Keshav Naik about the pending loan. At that juncture, there was a quarrel. Olvin Ravi Lobo (deceased) being the friend of a complainant, came in an auto rickshaw at that time. Passengers were there in his auto rickshaw. Therefore, there was no further conversation there. At about 9:20 P.M., complainant said to have called said Olvin Ravi Lobo which was recovered by his mother. She told the complainant that Olvin Ravi Lobo is very much present in the house. Thereafter, he called up Olvin Ravi Lobo and told him to come near Areangadi Janata Colony. At about 9:45 P.M., Olvin Ravi Lobo said to have come in the auto rickshaw and complainant, Janardhan Keshav Naik and Olvin Ravi Lobo were chit chatting. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6863 CRL.P No. 101581 of 2025 5. At about 11:30 P.M., on the same day, a tipper lorry came from Areangadi side and ran over all the three persons. They fell down on the mud road. When they were about to come out from the shop, the driver of the tipper lorry came in the reverse direction and again ran over the persons. 6. The complainant identified the driver of the tipper lorry as Vinayak Narayan Bhat (petitioner) and the lorry was red coloured lorry having a registration No.KA- 47/7700. Because of the said running over a tipper lorry, Janardhan Keshav Naik complainant and Olvin Ravi Lobo sustained injuries besides the auto rickshaw being damaged. On account of the head injuries sustained by Olvin Ravi Lobo, he said to have died and complainant sustained injuries on his both legs. 7. It is specific case of the complainant that the loan transaction, accused had the Janardhan Keshav Naik is the reason for killing the Olvin Ravi Lobo and also tried to kill the complainant and Janardhan Keshav Naik. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6863 CRL.P No. 101581 of 2025 8. After registering the case, Police conducted the detailed investigation and filed charge sheet. Earlier attempts were made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail was turned down by this Court and liberty was accorded for the petitioner to renew the bail request after the eyewitnesses are examined. 9. Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the bail grounds urged in the petition, contended that examination of eyewitnesses is now completed before the trial Court and thereafter, the present successive bail request is lodged before this Court. 10. He would further contend that the deposition of eyewitnesses which are placed on record would depict that soon after the incident, brother of the deceased said to have given a statement which has been video recorded wherein he has stated about the incident as an accident and later on with ulterior motive, the Police have filed a false charge sheet against the petitioner and very fact of accused No.2 being granted bail after sufficient opposition - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6863 CRL.P No. 101581 of 2025 from the prosecution, the present petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. 11. Per contra, Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State opposes the bail grounds with vehemence. 12. She would further contend that both the eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, prima facie materials are still available on record which would be sufficient enough to deny the bail to the present petitioner. 13. She would also contend in the event the bail is granted to the petitioner, there is every possibility of tampering the remaining witnesses of the prosecution and therefore, bail is to be rejected. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of material on record, no doubt complainant is an injured in the incident. According to the accused, it is an accident. Answers elicited in the cross - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6863 CRL.P No. 101581 of 2025 examination of the eyewitnesses would go to show that lorry driver was under the influence of liquor. 16. In fact, he has admitted before the Court in the cross examination that he had consumed liquor twice. Besides the said answer, he also admits the fact that if there is a high beam light in the night hours that would flash in the road, there is possibility of blackening of the visibility resulting in accident. 17. The fact remains that there was an incident where tipper lorry and an auto rickshaw was involved. Whether at all the complainant and Janardhan Keshav Naik are inmates of the auto rickshaw are cannot be decided by this Court at this stage. 18. Admittedly, the damage caused to the auto rickshaw and the photographs of the auto rickshaw and the tipper lorry is placed on record, which are also confronted to the prosecution witnesses and they have been questioned. 19. Apart from above aspects of the matter, soon after the incident, brother of the deceased having given a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6863 CRL.P No. 101581 of 2025 statement which has been recorded through a mobile telephone which is placed on record by way of a pen drive along with the necessary certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in the form of a pen drive marked Ex.D.3, depicts that the brother of the complainant did not mention the incident as murder at the inception but it is a road traffic accident. 20. 20. Anyway, it is for the learned trial Judge to decide whether the incident is an accident or a murder made by the present petitioner at the instigation of accused No.2 to depict that it is a road traffic accident. 21. Suffice to say at this stage, that since the eyewitnesses are examined, the apprehensions of the prosecution stands quelled in tampering with the prosecution witnesses. 22. Other apprehensions of the prosecution can be met with by imposing stringent conditions. 23. Taking note of the fact that the accused is in custody on and from 01.12.2023, this Court is of the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6863 CRL.P No. 101581 of 2025 considered opinion that the continuation of the present petitioner in custody is no longer warranted. 24. Accordingly, following order is passed. ORDER i. The criminal petition is allowed. ii. The Petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees one lakhs only] with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Judge. iii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper the prosecution evidence in any manner. iv. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Uttara Kannada- Karwar District without prior permission. v. Petitioner shall attend the court regularly. vi. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6863 CRL.P No. 101581 of 2025 Violation of any of the above conditions, would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 17