- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10327 CRL.P No. 102631 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102631 OF 2025 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHARANAPPA S/O. YAMANAPPA HUNASIHAL, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. TARALKATTE, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583 236. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.J. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH POLICE STATION, MUNIRABAD, KOPPAL-583 234, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.39/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOPPAL, OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 302 OF I.P.C. IN MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION CRIME NO.9/2015 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10327 CRL.P No. 102631 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Accused in S.C.No.39 of 2022 pending before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, arising out of Crime No.9 of 2015 registered by Munirabad Police Station, Koppal, for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, is before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.9 of 2015 was registered by Munirabad Police Station, Koppal, for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against the petitioner herein based on the first information dated 20.01.2015 received from Basamma, mother of deceased Laxmavva. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and he was shown as absconding in the charge sheet. Subsequently, he was arrested on 17.06.2022 and thereafter remanded to judicial custody. The case against him was committed to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10327 CRL.P No. 102631 of 2025 the Court of the Jurisdictional Sessions Court and numbered in S.C.No.39 of 2022 and his bail application filed before the trial Court in S.C.No.39 of 2022 was rejected on 11.01.2023. Therefore, he is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who has no criminal antecedent, is in custody from 17.06.2022 onwards. The sole eyewitness CW7 has been examined in the present case as PW5. Other material charge sheet witnesses are also examined. Out of the 22 charge sheet witnesses cited in the present case, till date only 8 witnesses are examined. Therefore, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. She submits that CW7, who is the eyewitness to the incident, has supported the case of the prosecution. The petitioner was absconding throughout and therefore, in the event if he is enlarged on bail, he is likely to flee - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10327 CRL.P No. 102631 of 2025 away from justice. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition. 6. First informant in the present case is the mother of the deceased Laxmavva. In the typed first information dated 20.01.2015, she has stated that her daughter Laxmavva had deserted her husband and was living along with her son Nirupadi. About 2 months prior to registration of FIR, Laxmavva had left the house of the first informant along with her son Nirupadi on the pretext of going to Huligemma temple and thereafter she had not returned home. Her whereabouts were not known to the first informant. On 20.01.2015, some villagers brought her grandson Nirupadi and informed her that her daughter Laxmavva was murdered. Immediately thereafter, first informant had gone to the spot of crime and found the dead body of Laxmavva. 7. On enquiry, she came to know that petitioner was living with Laxmavva and her son Nirupadi in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10327 CRL.P No. 102631 of 2025 house in which the dead body of Laxmavva was found. On 20.01.2015, Hanumanta Chamalapur who was the owner of the farm in which the petitioner and deceased were working found the dead body of Laxmavva in the house in which petitioner and Laxmavva were residing. Petitioner was not found in the house and Nirupadi was found outside the house. 8. Since the first informant suspected hand of the petitioner in the death of her daughter-Laxmavva, she has approached the police and based on her first information, FIR was registered against the petitioner. Investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed. As per the charge sheet allegation, on the night of 19.01.2015, petitioner had quarrelled with Laxmavva for some reason and had assaulted her with a wooden club and committed her murder. CW7 Nirudpadi who was aged about 7 years, is said to be the sole eyewitness to the incident in question. He has been examined before the trial Court as PW5. Out of the 22 charge sheet witnesses - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10327 CRL.P No. 102631 of 2025 cited in the present case, till date only 8 charge sheet witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to 8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner material charge sheet witnesses are already examined. Petitioner, who has no other criminal antecedent, is in custody for last more than 3 years. Since all the material charge sheet witnesses including the sole eyewitness have been already examined before the trial Court, apprehension of petitioner tampering material charge sheet witnesses may not arise. Out of 22 charge sheet witnesses, only 8 charge sheet witnesses are examined till date as PWs.1 to PW8. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Saikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2024) 9 SCC 813 in paragraph No. 17 has observed as follows: "17. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10327 CRL.P No. 102631 of 2025 Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime." 9. It is trite that accused cannot be detained in custody as a punitive or preventive measure. As only 8 charge sheet witnesses are examined out of the 22 charge sheet witnesses, the chances of the trial being completed and the case being disposed of on merits in the near soon is remote. Under the circumstances, considering the period of petitioner's incarceration, I am of the opinion that the prayer made for grant of regular bail needs to be answered in the affirmative. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.39 of 2022 pending before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, arising out of Crime No.9 of 2015 registered by Munirabad Police Station, Koppal, for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with 2 sureties - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10327 CRL.P No. 102631 of 2025 for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; 2. The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons; 3. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; 4. The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future; 5. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KGK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25