- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8772 CRL.P No. 102322 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102322 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: SHRI CHINNAPPA S/O. LATE MANI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O. KADDIRAMPUR VILLAGE, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583239. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI, HAMPI TOURISM POLICE STATION, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.9/2021 OF HAMPI TOURISM POLICE STATION FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 307, 323, 326, 504, 341, 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, SITTING AT HOSAPETE IN S.C.NO.5081/2021, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, 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:8772 CRL.P No. 102322 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. Sabeel Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 2. Accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking bail in Crime No.9/2021 of Hampi Tourism Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, 326, 504, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). 3. The case of the prosecution is that, one Muniyamma filed a complaint against accused No.1 stating that on 07.02.2021 at 03:00 p.m. her son-in-law Srinivas informed her that accused No.1 – Chinnappa was about to assault him. Later on the same day, around 05:30 p.m., deceased Srinivas fell down along with his motorcycle by the side of Danapura road in the land of Hanumanthappa. When - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8772 CRL.P No. 102322 of 2025 the complainant and others reached the spot, they found the said Srinivas, who had already sustained injuries on his head and his damaged motorcycle. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Hosapete. At a distance of 200 meters from the said place, near the road leading to the forest, another individual named Murugan was also found with injuries and the said Murugan was not in a position to speak and the motorcycle of the said Srinivas was also there. The said Murugan was shifted to the Government Hospital, Hosapete. The Doctor, who examined Srinivas, informed that, he is dead. Hence, a complaint was lodged. Based on the said complaint, a case came to be registered in Crime No.9/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 201 of IPC. This led to registration of FIR and initiation of investigation. During the course of investigation, this petitioner – accused No.1 was arrested and in-turn remanded to judicial custody. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent, has not committed any offence as alleged, has been falsely implicated in the case. The case - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8772 CRL.P No. 102322 of 2025 rests on circumstantial evidence, and there is a delay in recording the statement of witness to show that there is no motive for the petitioner to commit the offence. The petitioner is in judicial custody since four years, and the trial has not been completed and the trial would take its own time and there will be considerable delay in conclusion of the trial. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that, the offences alleged against the petitioner – accused No.1 is commission of murder and also assault on CW5 – Murgan with stone. If the petitioner is granted bail, he will threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the learned HCGP prayed to reject the petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8772 CRL.P No. 102322 of 2025 7. The accusation levelled against the petitioner and others is that when accused Nos.2 and 3 and CWs.4 to 6 went for chicken party, there was a quarrel, as the deceased alleged that, accused No.1 used to stare his wife with bad intention. At that time, the deceased Srinivas assaulted accused No.1 with his hand, CW-5-Murugan came to the support of the deceased Srinivas and accused Nos.1 to 3 quarelled with them. During the quarrel, CW-5 has caused injury on the neck of accused No.1. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted CW-5-Murugan with stone lying there. Thereafter, accused No.1 assaulted the deceased who was riding the motorcycle of CW-5 on his head and caused severe injuries due to which he succumbed to the injuries. The allegations suggest that a serious overt act is attributed against the petitioner – accused No.1, indicating his active involvement in the case. CWs.4 and 6, who are eyewitnesses to the incident, have clearly outlined the role played by accused No.1. Additionally, CW5 – Murgun, the injured eyewitness, has also provided a statement confirming the involvement of the petitioner – accused No. 1 in the incident. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8772 CRL.P No. 102322 of 2025 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that since accused Nos.2 and 3 were granted bail, the present petitioner – accused No.1 should also be released on bail, invoking the principle of parity. However, the allegations against the other accused relate to their assault on CW5 Murgun. Meanwhile, CW5 survived the incident, and there is no immediate threat to his life. Therefore, accused No.1 cannot be treated in the same manner as the other accused. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, looking into the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, gravity of offence, severity of punishment, chances of petitioner absconding or fleeing away from justice if released on bail, character and antecedents of the petitioner tampering with prosecution witnesses, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8772 CRL.P No. 102322 of 2025 ORDER Criminal Petition is hereby rejected. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE Rsh /ct-an List no.: 1 sl no.: 29