- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12 CRL.P No. 103311 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103311 OF 2024 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: AVINASH S/O. GUNDAPPA SAJJAN, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. SALESMAN, R/O. HIREHUNAKUNTI, TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587125. … PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA V. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ILKAL RURAL POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD-580001. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 483 OF BNSS 439 OF CRPC SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN SC NO.7/2023 (CRIME NO 85/2022 ILAKAL PS) PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGLKOTE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFNCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 201, 212 R/W 34 OF IPC BEFORE ILKAL RURAL POLICE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.07 15:11:06 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12 CRL.P No. 103311 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.85/2022 by Ilkal Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 212 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). 2. Sri Raja Raghavendra V. Naik, learned counsel for petitioner submitted as per prosecution one Veeresh and accused no.1 were friends, that Veeresh always spoke to petitioner (accused no.1) in abusive language and did not stop even after being warned, therefore petitioner intended to murder him. And while in judicial custody in relation to Crime no.14/2022 of Bagewadi Police Station, petitioner had acquainted with Sanju Neelakanth Hullur (accused no.2). On 26.10.2022, petitioner and accused no.2 hatched plan to murder Veeresh. And on 27.10.2022 at about 07:00 p.m., they took Veeresh along with them to isolated place at Ingalagi village for consuming liquor. While having liquor, when Veeresh once again used filthy language, petitioner with accused no.1 dropped a stone on Veeresh’s head with intention to kill him. Thereafter, even accused no.2 also picked said stone and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12 CRL.P No. 103311 of 2024 dropped it on Veeresh’s head causing his death. It was further alleged, petitioner and accused no.2 thereafter dragged body inside agricultural land with intention to destroy evidence. And when they informed same to accused no.3, he provided them shelter in his house, where they disposed of clothes worn by them, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 212 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. It was submitted, though not involved, petitioner was falsely implicated. It was submitted, petitioner was arrested on 04.11.2022 and in judicial custody for more than two years, while accused nos.2 and 3 were already enlarged on bail. On ground of parity, petitioner sought bail. It was submitted, District Court rejected bail application merely on ground that petitioner has involved in similar offences by referring to Crime no.14/2022, whereas petitioner of same in SC.no.187/2022 on 05.01.2024. It was further submitted, as more than 20 witnesses are required to be examined, conclusion of trial would be delayed. Even on ground that petitioner was law abiding and only bread earner of his family and as he did not have any antecedents, petitioner for Bail, by undertaking to abide by any conditions imposed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12 CRL.P No. 103311 of 2024 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in 2020 (11) SCC 648; and of this Court in Crl.P.no.4045/2022 allowed on 12.05.2022 (Injamam Shariff v. State of Karnataka by Kengeri Police Station) and in Crl.P.no.5740/2022 allowed on 01.09.2022 (Sri Sandeep Reddy v. State of Karnataka by Manchenahalli Police Station) for proposition that pendency of other criminal case by itself cannot be ground for rejection of bail. 5. Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP submitted petitioner was involved in heinous offence punishable with imprisonment for life. Though prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence, statements of CW-18 and 19 indicated, deceased was last seen with petitioner. It was specifically contended, even on ground of parity, petitioner was not entitled for Bail as allegations against petitioner and accused no.2 were distinct and petitioner was earlier involved in similar nature of offence. As trial had already commenced and witnesses were being examined, if bail was granted, he may - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12 CRL.P No. 103311 of 2024 influence witnesses. She prayed for dismissal of petition by issuing direction for expedite disposal of case. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 7. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail with conditions?” 8. Same is answered in affirmative for following reasons. 9. In instant case, as per prosecution, petitioner had ill-will against deceased for using abusive/filthy language while speaking to him and therefore, he intended to murder him. With such intention, petitioner and accused no.2 took deceased on motorcycle to an isolated place at 7:00 p.m., on 27.10.2022, consumed alcohol and when deceased used filthy language again, petitioner lifted a big stone and hit deceased on his head, which was repeated by accused no.2, causing death of deceased. Thereafter, both of them dragged body into nearby field with intention to destroy evidence. Thus, they had - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12 CRL.P No. 103311 of 2024 committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 212 read with Section 34 of IPC. 10. It is seen, there are no eyewitnesses of incident and prosecution case depends on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence referred to by learned HCGP is that of statement of CW-18 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., wherein he claims to have seen petitioner and accused no.2 riding motorcycle with deceased at 7:45 pm. (i.e. at night), which by itself may not establish offences alleged. Admittedly, accused no.2 is enlarged on bail. Allegations against petitioner and accused no.2 are similar i.e. hitting deceased on head with stone and attempting to destroy evidence. Rejection of petitioner’s bail application by learned District Judge is solely on ground of petitioner being involved in Crime no.14/2022 and in which petitioner is in fact acquitted. Ratio of decisions relied upon that mere pendency of earlier criminal cases cannot by itself be ground for rejection of bail as matter therein was still under investigation, with possibility of charges being proved. But, acquittal in earlier case would stand on higher pedestal. Since, accused no.2 is granted bail, on ground of parity, petitioner would be entitled for bail. Hence, following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12 CRL.P No. 103311 of 2024 ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused is released on bail in S.C. no.7/2023 (Crime no.85/2022) of Ilkal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 201, 212, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to following conditions: a) Petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum. b) Petitioner/accused shall make himself available for purpose of investigation as and when required and he shall co-operate with investigation. c) Petitioner/accused shall not threaten, tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly. d) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities. e) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings. f) Petitioner shall mark his attendance once every fifteen days before Ilkal Rural Police Station. g) Shall not leave jurisdiction of District and Sessions Court, Bagalkote, without prior permission. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12 CRL.P No. 103311 of 2024 h) Violation of any of conditions would entitle cancellation of bail. i) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- JUDGE RH/GRD CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 16