- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3368 CRL.P No. 101996 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101996 OF 2024 [439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: 1 . ANIL S/O. YAMANAPPA SANADI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. SANADI TOTA (FARM), HARUGERI, TALUKA: RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591220. 2 . ANIL S/O. HANAMANT SANADI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. SANADI TOTA (FARM), HARUGERI, TALUKA: RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591220 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.J. PEERJADE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH HARUGERI P.S. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO. 2 AND 3 IN S.C. 5011/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT CHIKKODI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120(B), 364, 302, 201 READ WITH UNDER SECTION 34 OF I.P.C. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.02.19 17:28:16 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3368 CRL.P No. 101996 of 2024 CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.180/2023 by Harugeri Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) by accused nos.2 and 3 (petitioners). 2. Sri MJ Peerjade, learned counsel for petitioners submitted prosecution case was, on 18.08.2023, Smt.Khairon Jamadar (complainant) filed complaint stating that she was residing with her husband and children at Harugeri Vadaki Thot. That Mahantesh Somning Poojari was her son Akbar’s friend. About 8 days earlier, Mahantesh had threatened to kill Akbar if he did not repay his mobile and money. But after some time, they went away together. She further stated that on previous day 17.08.2023 at about 5:00 p.m., Akbar informed her and went to Harugeri. He did not return even at 10:00 p.m., and she was unable to contact him over mobile phone. At 4:00 a.m. on 18.08.2023, Babu Nidoni came home and informed her that at 10:30 p.m., Mahantesh Poojary had killed Akbar by chopping - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3368 CRL.P No. 101996 of 2024 Akbar’s head off in jungle near Bastwad – Birnal road. She went there with her husband and son at 6:30 a.m. and found Akbar’s headless dead body. His severed head was not found nearby. Alleging that Mahantesh Poojary had killed Akbar (victim) for his failure to repay amount and mobile, complaint was filed. Same was registered as Crime no.180/2023 (supra). 3. It was submitted, though name of petitioners was not mentioned in complaint filed by victim’s mother, petitioners i.e. Anil son of Yamanappa Sanadi (accused no.2) and Anil son of Hanmant Sanadi (accused no.3) were arrested on 05.09.2023, without any justification. It was submitted, they were law abiding citizens without any criminal antecedents and permanent residents with families, who were dependent on them. It was submitted, there were no allegations of previous enmity with victim and they were falsely implicated. 4. It was submitted after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 15.11.2023, while petitioners were in custody. As per contents of charge-sheet, accused no.1 along with petitioners met at a room belonging to CW-30 in shopping complex at 7:00 p.m. on 16.08.2023, entered into conspiracy to kill victim and in furtherance of same, accused no.3 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3368 CRL.P No. 101996 of 2024 kidnapped victim on his motorcycle by inducement and took him to R.S.no.163 (jungle area) on Bastwad – Birnal road and for drinking beer with other accused. At that time, there was quarrel, when accused no.1 hit victim on his head with beer bottle, victim tried to escape and fell in a ditch. Accused no.3 held victim by his hands while accused no.2 held his legs tightly and accused no.1 sat on victim’s back and tied rope around his neck. After victim became unconscious, accused no.1 slashed victim’s neck with iron chopper. And with intention to destroy evidence, he put severed head in a bag and hid it with weapon in Sugarcane plantation. 5. It was submitted, only overt acts insofar as petitioners was not about holding victim’s limbs, which did not cause his death. Moreover, there were no eye-witnesses. Therefore, prosecution case against them was purely circumstantial and dependent on statements of CWs-26 to 28, which were recorded on 06.09.2023 more than 10 days after incident on 17.08.2023 and unreliable as such. 6. It was submitted, under similar circumstances where prosecution case was purely circumstantial, this Court in Crl.P.no.200379/2023 disposed on 24.05.2023 had granted - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3368 CRL.P No. 101996 of 2024 bail. It was submitted, petitioners were arrested on 05.09.2023 and charge-sheet was filed on 15.11.2023. Therefore, there would be no need of their presence for custodial interrogation. Under such circumstances and since petitioners had already spent more than one year in jail as undertrial. On above grounds, sought for allowing petition. 7. On other hand Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent – State opposed petition. At outset it was submitted, offence alleged against petitioners was murder of victim which was in most gruesome and inhumane manner by severance of head from body. It was submitted, offence was punishable with death and imprisonment for life, during investigation, prosecution had collected sufficient material to substantiate charges. It was submitted, present case was instance of cold blooded pre-planned murder. It was submitted, offences alleged were under Sections 120B, 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, which were heinous in nature. It was submitted, there were specific overt acts against each of accused. Accused no.1 hit victim on his head with beer bottle and when victim tried to escape and fell in a ditch, accused no.2 held his legs while accused no.3 held his hands allowing - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3368 CRL.P No. 101996 of 2024 accused no.1 to strangulate victim and thereafter slash his neck with iron chopper decapitating victim. Thereafter, accused no.1 tried to destroy evidence of murder by carrying severed head in a bag and disposing it of nearby Sugarcane plantation along with murder weapon. It was submitted, prosecution case was supported by statements of CWs-26 to 28, who had seen while victim was being kidnapped. Therefore, it was a strong circumstantial case. On above grounds, sought rejection. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused available material. 9. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioners are entitled for regular bail on conditions?” 10. This petition is for regular bail is by accused no.2 and 3 in Crime no.180/2023 by Harugeri Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. 11. Offences alleged are criminal conspiracy under Section 120B punishable with imprisonment for upto 2 years; kidnapping with intention to murder under Section 364 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3368 CRL.P No. 101996 of 2024 punishable with imprisonment for life; murder punishable with death or imprisonment for life; destruction of evidence under Section 201 punishable with imprisonment for upto 7 years. Therefore, nature of these offences would be heinous. 12. While as pointed out by learned HCGP it is a case of planning (conspiracy), commission of murder followed by attempt to destroy evidence and manner of commission of offence as alleged would indicate it to be gruesome. However, neither of overt acts insofar as petitioners i.e. about meeting accused no.1 in room on first floor of shopping complex of CW- 30 at 7:00 p.m. on 16.08.2023 and conspiring to murder victim, nor about their holding victim’s limbs when accused no.1 cut victim’s head off with iron chopper, there are any eye- witnesses. 13. Though, prosecution seeks to rely on statement of CW-32 about over hearing accused conspiring to murder victim and statements of CWs-26 to 28 as witnesses for last seen theory, their statements are recorded on 05.09.2023 and 06.09.2023 almost 20 days after incident. Therefore, prosecution case against petitioners would be purely circumstantial. Even reliance upon confessional statement of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3368 CRL.P No. 101996 of 2024 accused no.1 would be fragile in view of ratio in Ratnu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1667 and Randeep Singh @ Rana and Anr. v. State of Haryana, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3383, explaining circumstances under which extra judicial confessions could be relied upon and stating that they would be weak form of evidence. While coming to definite conclusion about involvement of petitioners in commission of offence at this stage, would not be appropriate, since investigation is completed and charge-sheet already filed, and presence of petitioners for custodial interrogation would not be necessary, it would be appropriate to enlarge them on bail subject to conditions as would address prosecution concern. 14. Hence, point for consideration is answered in affirmative. Consequently, following: ORDER Petition is allowed, accused no.2 and 3 are ordered to be released on bail in Crime no.180/2023 by Harugeri Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to following conditions: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3368 CRL.P No. 101996 of 2024 a) Accused no.2 and 3 shall separately execute personal bonds in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties each for likesum to satisfaction of Court. b) They shall not attempt to contact, threaten or induce any of prosecution witnesses. c) They shall be attend trial regularly. d) They shall forthwith inform change in residence to Investigating Officer. e) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie for purposes of this order and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50