- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18401 CRL.P No. 104440 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104440 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: 1. DAYANAND S/O SIDDAPPA GANI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE, R/O: UDAGATTI, TAL: DIST: BAGALKOTE- 587101. 2. YAMANAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA GANI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: UDAGATTI, TAL: DIST: BAGALKOTE- 587101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PSI BILAGI POLICE STATION, BAGALKOT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD- 580001. 2. GANESH S/O BASAPPA MAREMMANAVAR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: LINGAPUR S.K., TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT- 580001. 3. RAVI S/O. KHEMU NAIK, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR, R/O. ARAKERI L.T.NO.6, Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18401 CRL.P No. 104440 of 2025 NOW AT: SUBHAS NAGAR, B. KATI HALLI, HASSAN, TQ. TIKOTA, VIJAPURA, PIN-586101, KARNATAKA. 4. PARASHURAM S/O. KHEMU RATHOD @ NAIK, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR, R/O. ARAKERI L.T.NO.6, TQ. TIKOTA, NOW AT: TORVI, DIST. VIJAPURA, PIN- 586101, KARNATAKA. 5. KISHAN S/O. KHEMU NAIK, AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. ARAKERI L.T.NO.6, TQ. TIKOTA, NOW AT: VIJAPURA, DIST. VIJAPURA, PIN- 586101, KARNATAKA. RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 5 ARE THE BROTHERS OF THE DECEASED AJAY S/O. KHEMU NAYAK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVARADDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 & R5 ARE SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS) SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 2 ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO. 97/2025 IN CRIME NO. 63/2025 BY THE BILAGI POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOTE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 103(1), 238, 61(2) AND 3(5) OF BNS AND SEC. 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND ETC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18401 CRL.P No. 104440 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioners /accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court seeking for regular bail in Crime No.63/2025 of respondent police in Special Case No.97/2025 pending on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 103(1) and 238 r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS 2023’) and under Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘S.C and S.T (POA) Act, 1989. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, namely, Ganesh Maremmanawar, lodged a complaint stating that an unidentified dead body of a male was floating in the Ghataprabha river and he had seen the dead body near the bank of the Ghataprabha river. On seeing the dead body, the complainant lodges a complaint before the respondent police. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.63/2025 against unknown persons. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18401 CRL.P No. 104440 of 2025 respondent police after registering the case, conducted investigation. During investigation, the respondent - police learnt that the sister of the petitioners, namely, Jyothi D/o Siddappa Gani was having love affair with deceased Ravi S/o Khemu Nayak since from the college days. They worked together at different companies in Bengaluru. Later, Jyothi had shifted to her native and got married. It is further stated that the deceased in or the other pretext was creating problem and he was not allowing Jyothi to lead peaceful life. Hence, it is alleged that the petitioners had killed the deceased and threw the dead body into Ghataprabha river. After conducting investigation, charge sheet has been submitted by the respondent police. 3. Heard Sri.V.M.Sheelvant, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Praveen Devareddiyavara, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1– State. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences. They have been falsely implicated in the case. Even assuming that petitioners had enmity against the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18401 CRL.P No. 104440 of 2025 deceased, that itself is not sufficient to bring the petitioners within this case. 5. It is further submitted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Nothing has been recovered at the instance of the accused and a charge sheet has been filed by the respondent police. The petitioners will abide the conditions imposed by this Court if they are released on bail. Therefore, they may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 – State vehemently submitted that the petitioners being the brothers of Jyothi with an intention to commit murder of the deceased, they induced the deceased to come to Kalladgi Village and they have committed the murder of the deceased. There is a clear motive to commit the murder of the deceased as per the investigation. It is stated that the deceased was threatening the sister of the petitioners that he would circulate photos and video of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18401 CRL.P No. 104440 of 2025 their sister in the social media. It is also established that accused Nos.1 and 2, in furtherance of common intention, committed the murder of the deceased and threw the dead body into the river. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant them bail. Making such submissions, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 – State prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also on perusal of the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The averments of the charge sheet, even though would indicate that the petitioners have committed murder of the deceased, prima facie, that may not be sufficient to deny bail to the petitioners. Merely because, there are allegations made in the charge sheet against the petitioners are not sufficient to deny bail when the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Hence, it is appropriate to grant bail as prayed for. 8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18401 CRL.P No. 104440 of 2025 ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.63/2025 of respondent-police in Spl.C No.97/2025 pending on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot for the offences stated supra, on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (iii) The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court. (iv) The petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail. (vi) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal cases till disposal of the case. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18401 CRL.P No. 104440 of 2025 In case, if the petitioners violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE PJ/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31