- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2292 CRL.P No. 102350 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102350 OF 2024 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: MANJUNATH S/O. NAGARAJ JENAHALLI @ JINNALLI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. BENGERI EXTENTION, 3RD CROSS, GAYATRI COLONY, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020. … PETITIONER (BY SRI GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KESHWAPUR POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN S.C.NO. 5022/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI AS ATTACHED IN KESHWAPUR POLICE STATION CRIME NO.104/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 302 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.02.07 14:21:16 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2292 CRL.P No. 102350 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.104/2023 by Keshavapur Police Station for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short). 2. Sri Gouri Shankar Mot, learned counsel for petitioner submitted case of prosecution was that complaint was filed on 05.09.2023 at 10:00 p.m., by Smt.Deepika @ Sofiya stating that, she was residing with her husband Aslam (victim) and her mother-in-law, etc., at Mittal Apartment, Basveshwar Park, Sulla Road, Hubballi. When she returned from work that day at 7:30 p.m., she did not find her husband at home. At that time, her husband’s brother Ashpak called her and informed that Aslam’s friend Manjunath Jennalli (petitioner) has stabbed victim near Venkateshwar colony near SBI ATM and that his friends Imtiaz and Santosh had taken him to KIMS hospital for treatment. When she went to KIMS hospital, she - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2292 CRL.P No. 102350 of 2024 found him to be in blood stained clothes with stab injuries on left side of his chest. 3. On enquiry with Doctors, she was informed that he had died. Imtiaz and Santosh who had brought victim to hostipal informed her that victim was often abusing petitioner and three days earlier victim had taken a smart-watch of petitioner and at 7:30 p.m., petitioner called victim over phone and asked him to return his smart-watch and at 8:00 p.m. when Imtiaz and Santosh were with petitioner at Venkateshwar Colony near SBI ATM, victim came there, abused Manjunath in filthy language and assaulted him with stick lying nearby. At that time, Manjunath took out a knife and stabbed victim on left side of his chest. Victim fell down bleeding. Immediately Imtiaz and Santosh took him to KIMS hospital for treatment. Based on complaint, Crime no.104/2023 was registered against petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 4. It was submitted, as per complainant, Imtiaz, Santosh and petitioner were sitting near SBI ATM when Aslam came there and abused petitioner. But in inquest panchanama - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2292 CRL.P No. 102350 of 2024 at question no.10, Police Authority had recorded that there were no eyewitnesses. But in statement of Santosh-CW.11 recorded under Section 161 of CrPC on 07.09.2023, Santosh stated that on 05.09.2023 he was sitting with Imtiaz and victim near SBI ATM when Manjunath called Aslam and they quarreled. Thereafter, at 8:00 p.m., Manjunath came there and assaulted Aslam on his head with knife. Thereafter, he stabbed him on left side of his chest. When victim started bleeding and fell down, Manjunath ran away. Immediately victim was taken to KIMS Hospital for treatment. It was submitted, in his statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, Imtiaz stating about victim assaulting petitioner with stick before stated that petitioner assaulted victim with knife. 5. Likewise in his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, Santosh stated that he along with Imtiaz and victim were sitting near SBI-ATM at 7:30 p.m., and in his statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, Santosh stated that on 05.09.2023, himself, Aslam and Imtiaz were walking towards Venkateshwar colony, Manjunath and Aslam were quarreling. At that time he was speaking over phone and when he turned, he saw, victim had fallen down. When he went near, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2292 CRL.P No. 102350 of 2024 he saw that he was bleeding. Thereafter he took him to KIMS hospital for treatment. It was submitted, under above circumstances and fact that statement of eyewitnesses were recorded two days after incident would raise serious doubt. In support of his submission, he relied upon order dated 13.09.2024 passed by this Court in Crl.P.no.6818/2024. 6. It was further submitted in his statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, Imtiaz had stated that, when they took victim to KIMS hospital for treatment, even Manjunath had come there for treatment. Upon identifying Manjunath as accused, police took him into custody. But in arrest memo, place of arrest of petitioner was shown as last bus-stand of Sainagar at 10:00 a.m. on 06.09.2023. It was submitted, above variations cast serious doubt about prosecution case and as prosecution had completed investigation and filed charge sheet on 01.12.2023 and petitioner had already spent 17 months in custody and conclusion of trial was likely to be delayed, sought for allowing petition. 7. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP opposed petition. At outset, it was submitted offence alleged - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2292 CRL.P No. 102350 of 2024 against petitioner – sole accused was murder, which was heinous in nature. It was submitted during investigation, prosecution had examined 31 witnesses and recorded statements. It was submitted CWs.10 to 14 were eyewitnesses. It was submitted, CW.10 – Imtiaz, brother of victim had supported prosecution case and cause of death mentioned in postmortem report was stab injury and there was recovery of murder weapon also. Thus, there was sufficient material to establish chain of events. It was submitted, in case petitioner is granted bail, there was every likelihood of petitioner threatening prosecution witnesses. On above grounds, sought for rejection of petition. 8. Heard learned counsel. 9. From above, only point that would arise for consideration is : Whether petitioner is entitled to grant regular bail on condition? 10. This petition for regular bail by sole accused for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC i.e., murder. Though nature of offence would be heinous and averments in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2292 CRL.P No. 102350 of 2024 complaint would appear to contain all ingredients to support charge of murder, petition contends that there are grave omissions and inconsistencies in prosecution version. Complainant stated about receiving intimation from Santosh, but in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC she speaks about her mother-in-law informing her. Likewise, though prosecution appears to be relying upon eyewitnesses namely CWs.10 to 14, on prima facie examination there are several variations about manner of occurrence of incident. Complainant stated that on date of incident when petitioner along with Imtiaz and Santosh were sitting near SBI ATM, victim came there and abused Manjunath and assaulted him with stick and Manjunath took out knife and stabbed victim. Imtiaz - CW.10 stated that on date of incident he was sitting with victim near SBI ATM when petitioner came there and quarreled with victim leading to assault. Likewise statements of CW.11 – Santosh and CW.12 - Ashpak would vary with prosecution version. However prosecution has to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, during trial and no conclusive finding can be given about prosecution case at this stage. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2292 CRL.P No. 102350 of 2024 11. Prosecution has completed investigation and field charge sheet on 01.12.2023 and petitioner has already spent about 17 months in custody, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, where it is held object of bail is to ensure attendance of accused in trial and not to punish under trial. Under above circumstances and since 31 witnesses are cited and conclusion of trial is likely to be delayed and concerns of prosecution about interference or influencing of prosecution witnesses etc. could be addressed by imposing conditions, point for consideration is answered in affirmative. Hence, following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner – sole accused is ordered to be released on bail in S.C.No.5022/2024 on file of I Additonal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi (Crime no.104/2023 of Keshavapur Police Station for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, subject to following conditions: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2292 CRL.P No. 102350 of 2024 a) Accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of Court. b) He shall not leave jurisdiction of Dharwad District without prior permission of Court. c) He shall not threaten or tamper with any prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly. d) He shall not involve in any criminal activities. e) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings. f) He shall forthwith inform any change of his residence to Investigating Officer. g) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE RH/EM CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2