- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7534 CRL.P No. 101872 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. 101872 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: SHRI. BHARAMAPPA S/O. BALAPPA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT KAPPALAGUDDI-591235 TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK R. KALYANSHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (HARUGERI PS), BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT PREMISES, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.483 OF BNSS/439 OF CRPC SEEKING TO ENLARGE the PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2 ON BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN HARUGERI PS CRIME NO.112/2024 S.C NO.5049/2024 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE BELGAVI SITTING AT CHIKKODI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 148, 120B, 364, 302, 201 R/W. 149 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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:7534 CRL.P No. 101872 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) 1. Heard Sri. Ashok R. Kalyanshetty, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. This petitioner/accused No.2 has filed this petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short,) for grant of regular bail in Crime No.112/2024 by Harugeri Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 364, 302, 201 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) by accused No.2 (petitioner). 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 4. On 12.06.2024, the first informant lodged complaint alleging that she was married to Irappa Alagonda Chougala (victim) 12 years ago and both were residing at Sultanpur, with their three children and parents-in-law. The family was holding lands at Sultanpur. However, without any necessity, her brother-in-law Shrishail (accused No.1) expressed intention to sell 1 Acre of joint family property by claiming it to be necessary - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7534 CRL.P No. 101872 of 2025 to meet family necessity. Same was opposed by her. This had led to altercation with Shrishail who threatened that even if it necessitated murder of Irappa Alagonda Chougala, he would achieve his objective. Due to threat, her husband had asked her to reside at her maternal home at Mugalkhod with children. Nevertheless, she used to visit her home every week, while victim stayed at Sultanpur. 5. It was further contended that, in order to prevent accused no.1 from selling land, Irappa Alagonda Chougala had filed suit before Civil Court at Raibag, which had further enraged petitioner and he frequently threatened to kill Irappa Alagonda Chougala. On 05.06.2024 in the morning her father-in-law called to enquire about victim, who went out of house at 10:00 pm previous day, had not returned and was missing and he was unable to contact him over phone. Thus, a missing complaint was lodged on 06.06.2024. 6. On the same day i.e. on 12.06.2024 at 5.00 p.m., when she was at Mugalkhod, Rajashekhar Balchandra Naik and her brother Mahantesh informed her that accused No.1 had confessed about committing a grave mistake and asked for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7534 CRL.P No. 101872 of 2025 saving him. On enquiry, accused No.1 had told about altercation with victim over sale of land and his refusal to consent for withdrawal of civil suit had got him angry and assuming his murder would yield him entire property, had given supari (contract) to Bharmappa Balappa Naik (accused No.2) for Rs.14 Lakhs for commission of murder of victim and at 9:30 p.m. on 04.06.2024, he along with Bharmappa and boys from Mudalagi village, kidnapped Irappa Alagonda Chougala in Innova vehicle, committed murder and disposed of his body in a river. But as he had given missing complaint to police, their frequent visits and enquiry had caused fear and therefore, accused intended to sell 1 Acre of land and give share to complainant and sought help to escape from police case. But, he was advised to surrender before police. Thus, accused No.1 had offered accused No.2 for Rs.14 Lakhs to murder of Irappa Alagonda Chougala and they along with boys from Mudalagi had kidnapped Irappa Alagonda Chougala, killed him and disposed of his body. Based on the complaint, Harugeri Police registered the case in Crime No.112/2024. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7534 CRL.P No. 101872 of 2025 and he has not involved in this case. There is no overtact against accused No.2. The only allegation is that this petitioner was engaged by accused No.1, in turn, the petitioner engaged accused No.3 to 5 in commission of murder. Later, the petitioner along with other accused persons thrown the dead body in the river. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Further, this Court granted bail in Crl.P.No.100288/2025 in favour of accused No.3 to 5. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that accused No.2 was arrested on 15.06.2024, investigating officer has concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet. Now, the matter is committed to the Court of Session. However, the trial Court has not yet all framed charges against the accused and therefore, there would be considerable delay in concluding the trial. On these grounds also the counsel prayed for grant of bail. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb1 held that delay in trial, amounts to 1 [2021] 3 SCC 713 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7534 CRL.P No. 101872 of 2025 violation of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the violation of fundamental rights can be a valid ground for grant of bail. 10. Considering the ratio laid down supra and facts and circumstances of the present case is concerned, on the ground of parity also, accused No.2 is entitled for bail. 11. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that, the petitioner is involved in the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and there is prima facie material against accused No.2 to show his involvement in the alleged offence. If he is released on bail, he may threaten the complainant and would hamper the investigation as well as the trial. Thus, he prayed to reject the bail petition. 12. Perused the material available on record. 13. In this case, there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case is based on circumstantial evidences. 14. As per the charge sheet material, the body of deceased Irappa Alagonda Chougala stated to be found in 15ft. deep Krishna River after 8 days in highly decomposed state. As - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7534 CRL.P No. 101872 of 2025 per the post mortem report, “victim was murdered by strangulation as well as inflicting testicular injury”. Whereas the opinion of the doctor in the Post mortem Report (‘PMR’), death was “due to shock secondary to testicular injury” which would contradict with prosecution case. 15. In this case from perusal of Statements of CWs-27 and 28 who were witnesses while accused persons kidnapping the deceased would implicate petitioner in this case. Confessional statement of accused No.1 stands corroborated by statement of CW-21. From perusal of material available on record, the motive in commission of murder is that accused No.1 was intended to sell 1 acre of family properties and the deceased was opposed it. At this juncture, there is prima facie case against accused No.1 who made criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased and accused Nos.3 to 5 who committed murder.. Therefore, looking into the statement of the witnesses, accused No.1 had motive in commission of the murder who gave supari killing to accused No.2. In fact accused No.3 to 5 are enlarged on bail by this Court. The allegations against accused 3 to 5 and as that of accused No.2 are standing on the same footing. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7534 CRL.P No. 101872 of 2025 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and 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, tempering of the prosecution witnesses, petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.112/2024 of respondent - Police Station on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two surety for the likesum to the satisfaction jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: i. Petitioner/accused No.2 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses and threaten the complainant. ii. Petitioner/accused No.2 shall appear before the Jurisdictional Court regularly without fail. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7534 CRL.P No. 101872 of 2025 iii. Petitioner/accused No.2 shall not commit similar offences. Violation of any of these conditions would entitle for cancellation of bail. Ordered accordingly. Note: The above observations are made only for disposal of this petition. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AC /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36