- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8801 CRL.P No. 102502 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102502 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: DASTAGEER S/O MAREMASAB HUNASHYL AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE R/O VIDYANAGAR MUDALGI VILLAGE TALUK: GOKAK , DISTRICT: BELAGAVI 590 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HARUGERI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH DHARWAD-08. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. KIRTILATA PATIL, H.C.G.P.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER IN S.C. NO.5049/2024 AND SPLIT UP C.C. NO.5637/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RAIBAG, ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.112/2024 DATED 12.06.2024 IN CONNECTION WITH HARUGERI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 120B, 364, 302 AND 201 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF THE IPC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8801 CRL.P No. 102502 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) The petitioner/accused No.7 has filed this petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in Crime No.112 of 2024 registered by Harugeri Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 12.06.2024, the first informant lodged a complaint alleging that she was married to Irappa Chougale (victim) about 12 years back and both were residing at Sultanpur Village with their three children and parents-in-law. The family was holding lands at Sultanpur. However, without any necessity, her brother-in-law, Shrishail (accused No.1) expressed intention to sell 1 acre of joint family property by claiming it to be necessary to meet family necessity. Same was opposed by her. This led to altercation with - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8801 CRL.P No. 102502 of 2025 Shrishail and he threatened that even if it necessitated murder of Irappa Chougale, he would achieve his objective. Due to threat, her husband asked her to reside at her maternal home at Mugalkhod with children. Nevertheless, she used to visit her home every week, while Irappa Chougale stayed at Sultanpur. It was further contended that, in order to prevent accused No.1 from selling the land, Irappa Chougale filed a suit before the Civil Court at Raibag, which had further enraged accused No.1 and he frequently threatened to kill Irappa Chougale. On 05.06.2024 in the morning, her father-in-law called to enquire about the Irappa Chougale, who went out of house at 10:00 p.m. previous day, had not returned and was missing and he was unable to contact him over phone. Thus, a missing complaint was lodged on 06.06.2024. On 12.06.2024 at 5.00 p.m., when she was at Mugalkhod, Rajashekhar Balchandra Naik and her brother, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8801 CRL.P No. 102502 of 2025 Mahantesh, informed her that accused No.1 had confessed about committing a grave mistake and asked for saving him. On enquiry, accused No.1 informed about altercation with Irappa Chougale over sale of land and his refusal to consent for withdrawal of civil suit had got him angry and assuming his murder would yield him entire property, had given supari (contract) to Bharamappa Balappa Naik (accused No.2) for Rs.14 lakh for commission of murder of Irappa Chougale and at 9:30 p.m., on 04.06.2024, he along with Bharamappa and boys from Mudalagi Village, kidnapped Irappa Chougale in Innova car, killed him and disposed of his body. Based on the complaint, Harugeri Police registered a case in Crime No.112 of 2024. 3. Heard Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Kirtilata Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.7 has contended that the petitioner has been falsely - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8801 CRL.P No. 102502 of 2025 implicated in the case and he has not involved in the case. There is no overt act against the petitioner. The only allegation is that the petitioner made criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 5 in commission of murder. Later, the petitioner along with other accused persons thrown the dead body in Krishna river. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Further, on 24-2-2025 in Criminal Petition No.100288 of 2025, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted bail to accused Nos.3 to 5, and on 11-6-2025 in Criminal Petition No.101872 of 2025, this Court granted bail to accused No.2. Learned counsel further contended that the Investigating Officer has concluded the investigation and filed charge-sheet. Now, the matter is committed to the Court of Sessions. However, the trial Court has not yet framed charges against the accused and therefore, there would be considerable delay in concluding the trial. On these grounds also, he prayed for grant of bail. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8801 CRL.P No. 102502 of 2025 Learned counsel further contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. K.A. NAJEEB1 held that delay in trial, amounts to violation of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, and the violation of fundamental rights can be a valid ground for grant of bail. Considering the ratio laid down supra and facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned, on the ground of parity also, the petitioner is entitled for bail. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the petitioner is involved in heinous offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and there is prima-facie material against the petitioner to show his involvement in the alleged offence. If he is released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses and would hamper the 1 [2021] 3 SCC 713 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8801 CRL.P No. 102502 of 2025 investigation as well as the trial. Thus, she prayed to reject the bail petition. 6. Perused the material available on record. In this case, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. As per the charge-sheet material, the body of deceased Irappa Chougale stated to be found 15 feet deep in Krishna river after eight days in highly decomposed state. As per the charge-sheet, “victim was murdered by strangulation as well as inflicting testicular injury”. Whereas the opinion of the Doctor in the Post-Mortem Report, death was “due to shock secondary to testicular injury” which would contradict with prosecution case. 7. CWs.27 and 28 are eyewitnesses for abduction of Irappa Chougale. They have not identified anyone, except accused Nos.1 and 2. Confessional statement of accused No.1 stands corroborated by statement of CW21. From perusal of material available on record, the motive in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8801 CRL.P No. 102502 of 2025 commission of murder is that accused No.1 was intended to sell 1 acre of family property and Irappa Chougale opposed it. At this juncture, there is prima-facie case against accused No.1 who made criminal conspiracy to eliminate Irappa Chougale and accused Nos.2 to 7, who committed murder. Therefore, looking into the statement of the witnesses, accused No.1 had motive in commission of the murder who gave supari killing to accused No.2. In fact, accused Nos.3 to 5 are enlarged on bail by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court. The allegations against accused Nos.2 to 5 stands on the same footing as that of the petitioner. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking into the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, gravity of offences, severity of punishment, chances of the petitioner absconding or fleeing away from justice if released on bail, character and antecedents of the petitioner, tampering of the prosecution witnesses, the petitioner is entitled for grant - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8801 CRL.P No. 102502 of 2025 of bail. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: O R D E R Criminal petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused No.7 on bail in Crime No.112 of 2024 of Harugeri Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, subject to the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court; ii) Petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8801 CRL.P No. 102502 of 2025 iii) Petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court regularly without fail, and iv) Petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future. Any violation of the conditions imposed above would enable the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that the above observations made herein are only for disposal of the present petition. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17