- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7531 CRL.P No. 101718 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101718 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: MR. YALLAPPA S/O. HANAMANT KAKI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANABARATTI VILLAGE, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591121. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAQBOOLAHAMED M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH NESARAGI P.S, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-11. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON REGULAR BAIL IN SC NO.142/2024 WHICH IS CHARGESHEETED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.302, 504 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF IX ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI (NESARAGI PS CRIME NO.37/2024), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 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:7531 CRL.P No. 101718 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with S.C. No.142/2024 on the file of learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: One Kumari Vidyalaxmi D/o. Yallappa Kaki filed the complaint before Nesargi Police alleging that the petitioner is her father and the deceased is her mother. On 22.05.2024 at about 10:00 p.m., the first informant, her mother, father and sister had slept after their dinner in their house. The first informant went to attend the nature call. While she returning back, she saw that her father was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7531 CRL.P No. 101718 of 2025 fighting with her mother. At the same time, her father – accused assaulted her mother with shovel on the right side of the face and head. As a result, she severely injured and succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged, which led to the registration of an FIR and initiation of investigation. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and in turn remanded to judicial custody and since then, he is in judicial custody. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court has almost concluded the trial of case and the prosecution have examined in all 21 witnesses, out of a total 37 charge sheet witnesses. It is pointed out that all the material witnesses, including the children of the deceased i.e., PWs.1 and 2 and other circumstantial witnesses, have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Hanabaratti Village, Bailhongal Taluk, and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7531 CRL.P No. 101718 of 2025 Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole caretaker of two minor children i.e., PWs.1 and 2. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 24.05.2024, and there is a likelihood of further delay in the conclusion of the trial. In view of these facts and considering the fact that the petitioner may succeed in the trial, he seeks for grant of bail by allowing this petition. 5. Learned HCGP for the respondent – State opposed the petition and contended that there exists a prima facie case against the petitioner, who is alleged to have committed the murder of his young wife in the presence of PWs.1 and 2, who are their minor daughters. It is contended that although the material witnesses have turned hostile, the prosecution still relies on the remaining evidence available on record, which may be sufficient to secure a conviction. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of bail at this stage. Accordingly, learned HCGP prayed for rejection of the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7531 CRL.P No. 101718 of 2025 6. Perused the material available on record and also the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are eye witness to the incident and they are none other than daughters of the accused as well as the deceased. It revealed that these witnesses have not made any incriminating statements against the petitioner regarding the commission of the alleged offence. The testimony of PW1 given under oath is also found to be contradictory to the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, PW3, who is the uncle of the accused, PW4, the mother of the deceased, and other neighbouring witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution’s case. It appears that, all material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb1 held that delay in trial, amounts to violation of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India 1 [2021] 3 SCC 713 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7531 CRL.P No. 101718 of 2025 and the violation of fundamental rights can be a valid ground for grant of bail. 8. Whereas, in this case, almost all material witnesses have been examined by the Trial Court and most of the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and the Trial Court is yet to examine other 16 witnesses in this matter i.e., only official witnesses and that would cause considerable delay. In view of the ratio laid down in the decision cited supra and 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 of the prosecution witnesses, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER [i] The criminal petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7531 CRL.P No. 101718 of 2025 [ii] The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on he executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. [iv] The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses. [v] The petitioner shall appear before the Court regularly. [vi] The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the pendency of the trial, including any offence similar to the one alleged. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail before the appropriate Court in accordance with law. NOTE: The above observation made in this petition is only for the purpose of disposal of this petition. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RSH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31