- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2089 CRL.P No. 103817 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103817 OF 2024 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: ANANDA S/O. DADDEPPARA MAHAESHAPPA, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. NIMBALGERE VILLGE, KOTTUR TQ. VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583124. … PETITIONER (BY SRI ANWAR BASHA B., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH HOSAHALLI P.S.) REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD-580001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL IN CR.NO.58/2024 REGISTERED IN HOSAHALLI POLICE STATION BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCES U/S. 302, 341, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC, PENDING TRAIL OF THE CASE BEFORE III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI SITTING AT HOSAPETE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.02.04 14:53:19 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2089 CRL.P No. 103817 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition for regular bail is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.58/2024 by Hosahalli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) by accused no.2 (petitioner). 2. Sri B. Anwar Basha, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, case of prosecution was that complaint was filed by Ibrahim on 30.03.2024 stating that complainant was married to Fatima 18 years earlier and they had three children and were residing together at Nimbalagere village of Kottur taluk. His wife Fatima had developed intimacy with his relative one Irfan – accused no.1 and they were having affair, which came to light when about 3 years earlier, they went to Bengaluru stayed together for about a month and only after settlement before Panchayath, she had agreed to remain with complainant. Even thereafter she had continued affair with accused no.1, who was instigating her to be with him. And his wife had filed maintenance case against complainant before Kudligi Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2089 CRL.P No. 103817 of 2024 Even said matter, village elders held conciliation between petitioner and his wife, wherein she agreed to remain with complainant. 3. In pursuance of same, on date of complaint they went to Court at Kudligi on motorcycle accompanied by two more persons. But while returning, when they were about 4 Kms. from their village, accused no.1 along with petitioner as pillion were waiting by side of road with their motorcycle. On seeing complainant, accused no.1 tried to stop it. When complainant disregarded and proceeded accused chased them on their motorcycle. At that time accused no.1 abused victim and assaulted her with a knife in his hand causing injuries on her left shoulder and due to which she fell down from motorcycle. Out of fear for his own life, complainant stopped a little further. From there, he saw that petitioner was holding legs of victim while accused no.1 was stabbing her with knife on her face, neck and etc. Fearing for his life, complainant rushed to his village and came back with villagers to find victim lying dead on road in pool of blood. Complainant stated that accused had murdered his wife. Based on complaint, Crime no.58/2024 (supra) was registered. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2089 CRL.P No. 103817 of 2024 4. Learned counsel submitted only overt-act in complaint insofar as petitioner was about him holding legs of victim while accused no.1 was assaulting her. It was submitted though affair between accused no.1 and victim was probable motive insofar as accused no.1, there was none insofar as present petitioner. Entire allegations in complaint were against accused no.1. Therefore, it was evident that petitioner was being falsely implicated. It was further submitted petitioner was working as a driver and was permanent resident of Nimbalagere village having movable and immovable properties. 5. It was submitted, petitioner was arrested on 31.03.2024 and was in custody since then. It was submitted, only reason assigned by District Court for rejecting bail petition was existence of prima facie case, in view of complainant being an eyewitness and there being specific overt-acts in complainant. Relying upon decisions of this Court in Crl.P.no.100076/2024 disposed of on 22.01.2024 and Crl.P.no.100895/2021 disposed of on 31.05.2021, learned counsel submitted in similar circumstances where charges against accused were for offences under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and only overt-act against petitioners therein were holding - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2089 CRL.P No. 103817 of 2024 legs of victim at time of assault by accused no.1, this Court had granted bail. On similarity, learned counsel sought for consideration of his application. 6. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent – State opposed petition. At outset it was submitted, decisions passed in other bail petitions cannot be treated as precedent and would not have binding effect since they were in different crime. In instant case, complainant himself was an eyewitness and alleged specific overt-act against petitioner about assisting accused no.1 by holding down victim by her legs. It was also submitted in case of grant of bail, there was every possibility of petitioner tampering with prosecution witnesses who were also residents of same village. On said grounds sought for rejection of bail petition. 7. Heard learned counsel. 8. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail with conditions?” 9. This petition is for regular bail by accused no.2 in Crime no.58/2024 (supra). As noted above, nature of offence - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2089 CRL.P No. 103817 of 2024 alleged against accused are wrongful restraint under Section 341, insult with intention to provoke breach of peace under Section 504 and criminal intimidation under Section 506 apart from Section 304 r/w 34 of IPC. While offence of murder would be punishable with punishment of death or imprisonment for life while others carry lesser sentences. However indeed seen only overt-act insofar as petitioner appears to be that he was holding down victim by her legs while accused no.1 assaulted her with knife on her face and neck, without any motive. Indeed, prosecution would have opportunity to sustain charges during trial. At this stage since complaint and charge sheet allegations are mainly against accused no.1, that petitioner is in custody since from 31.03.2024 while investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed on 21.05.2024 and concerns of prosecution could be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions, point for consideration is answered in affirmative. Hence, following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused no.2 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime no.58/2024 of Hosahalli Police Station Ballari for offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2089 CRL.P No. 103817 of 2024 506 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to following conditions: a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of trial Court. b) He shall make himself available for purpose of investigation as and when required and co- operate with investigation. c) He shall not leave jurisdiction of Vijayanagara District without prior permission. d) He shall not threaten or tamper with any prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly. e) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities. f) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings. g) Violation of any of conditions would entitle cancellation of bail. h) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM/CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6