- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1650 CRL.P No. 103861 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103861 OF 2024 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: SHIVAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA BADIGER, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. PYATI ONI, TADAKOD, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD, PIN-581105. … PETITIONER (BY SRI T.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA GARAD P.S. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD, PIN-580011. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN SC NO.39/2024 ARISING OUT OF GARAG CRIME NO.248/2023 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.302 AND 201 OF IPC AGAINST HIM, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.29 10:00:10 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1650 CRL.P No. 103861 of 2024 CAV 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.248/2023 by Garag Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) by sole accused (Petitioner). 2. Sri TR Patil, learned counsel for petitioner submitted case of prosecution was that Smt.Roopa w/o Suresh Devaravar filed complaint on 24.12.2023 that about seven months earlier, petitioner who was running Tea Shop and having a B.E. passed son, borrowed Rs.60,000/- from her husband Suresh (victim). But even after repeated demand, petitioner had not returned money and had maintained grudge against Suresh. It was further stated that at 3:00 p.m. on 21.12.2023, when Suresh went to Tea Shop and demanded money, petitioner had abused him and returned Rs.30,000/-. 3. Thereafter at 6:30 p.m. on 24.12.2023, Suresh had left home on his motorcycle informing complainant that he was going to Amminbhavi. And that complainant had seen petitioner - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1650 CRL.P No. 103861 of 2024 carrying a satchel and sitting behind Suresh. Later at 8:15 p.m., someone called her father-in-law to inform him that someone had killed Suresh by hitting him on his head with Crowbar and he was lying near land of Toggi on Uppin Betageri – Haro Belavadi road. On reaching spot, she noted petitioner who was pillion rider behind her husband Suresh (victim) was missing, but his foot wear were found nearby. On enquiry, she heard that at 8:00 p.m. when petitioner was riding with victim, petitioner had hit victim on his head with Crowbar killing him and with intention to hide/destroy evidence of murder, had sought to make it look like a motor accident. Said complaint was registered as Crime no.248/2023 by Garag Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 4. It was submitted on 26.12.2023, petitioner was arrested. Though, he had filed bail petition in SC no.39/2024, same was dismissed by order dated 22.07.2024 without proper consideration. It was submitted, investigation was already completed and charge-sheet was filed on 31.01.2024. Same would reveal that there were no eye-witnesses to incident and entire case of prosecution was dependent on circumstantial evidence. It was submitted, in her statement recorded by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1650 CRL.P No. 103861 of 2024 Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’), complainant had stated amount borrowed from deceased by petitioner was Rs.60,000/- but in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, she alleged that amount borrowed was Rs.2,00,000/-. Likewise, there was contradiction about time of receipt of information about her husband’s death and about her returning home from Shandy. It was submitted injuries noted in PM Report were Cut Lacerated Wounds (CLW) which could be caused only by a sharp object like knife or machete. And as there were no ocular witnesses to incident, all witnesses were hear-say witnesses. It was further pointed out, bag stated to have been carried by petitioner herein was not recovered. It was further submitted, as per prosecution description of murder weapon Crowbar was 55 inches in length and 5 inches in diameter, which was concealed by petitioner in satchel, which was totally improbable casting grave doubt about prosecution version. 5. It was further submitted, petitioner was arrested on 26.12.2023, while charge-sheet was filed on 31.01.2024 and petitioner had already spent more than a year in custody. Further, as prosecution had shown 34 witnesses in charge- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1650 CRL.P No. 103861 of 2024 sheet, conclusion of trial was likely to be delayed. On above grounds, sought for allowing bail petition. It was also submitted, there no criminal antecedents. On above grounds, learned counsel sought for allowing petition by imposing conditions. 6. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent – State opposed petition. It was submitted, petitioner was charge-sheeted for commission of heinous offence of murder. Though, there were no direct witnesses, material collected by prosecution indicated strong circumstantial evidence as complainant had seen petitioner going along with deceased on motorcycle, on date of incident. It was also pointed out that in his statement under Section 161 of CrPC, petitioner had confessed about crime and had led to recovery of murder weapon. Offences alleged were punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Material collected also indicated elaborate planning and preparation and also attempt at destroying evidence. On above grounds, sought rejection of petition. 7. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1650 CRL.P No. 103861 of 2024 8. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail on conditions?” 9. This is petition for regular bail is by sole accused in Crime no.248/2023 by Garag Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, which are not only heinous and grave but also carry maximum sentence of death or imprisonment for life. 10. Admittedly, deceased was found dead with traumatic injuries. Contents of complaint filed by wife of victim includes particulars about motive and preparation. She claims to have seen petitioner going to Amminbhavi on motorcycle along with victim as pillion rider carrying satchel, in which he allegedly hid murder weapon. Complainant is filed without any apparent unexplained delay. Prima facie examination of charge- sheet material reveals that statements of complainant (CW-1), Owner and server of Shri Hotel, Uppina Betageri (CWs-18 and 19, where victim and petitioner had dinner and statement of Petrol Pump employee (CW-7) where they were seen together filling fuel into motorcycle and which was also recorded in CC Camera which is claimed to be strong circumstantial evidence - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1650 CRL.P No. 103861 of 2024 (i.e. last seen). Apart from above, prosecution also seeks to rely on statement of accused coupled with recovery of murder weapon. It is also claimed that petitioner’s foot wear along with that of victim were found near spot of incident. Though, Post Mortem Examination Report shows cause of death as “due to shock and hemorrhage due to injuries sustained” and injuries noted are CLW, dimensions of injuries which are several centimetres in length, width and depth near occipital region with as many fractures of skull and exposure of brain tissue not only indicates brutality of murder but does not rule out possibility of being inflicted by murder weapon seized namely chisel. Indeed, whether prosecution is able to establish above circumstances beyond reasonable doubt can be examined only after conclusion of trial. Until then accused would be entitled to claim innocence and seek protection from deprivation of liberty as undertrial. 11. Insofar as contention urged that the satchel which petitioner was stated to have carried while going along with victim on date of incident, was not seized would not hold as blood stained satchel was found and seized. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1650 CRL.P No. 103861 of 2024 12. Indeed, dimension of murder weapon is shown to be 55 inches in length with 5 inches in circumference in seizure panchanama, would make it appear inconsistent with prosecution case, same cannot be sole basis for granting bail as it would still be open for prosecution to explain. 13. Indisputably, offence alleged (murder) is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and there appears sufficient material for prosecution to proceed to trial. Moreover, petitioner is also alleged to have committed offence of destruction of evidence. Thus, point for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently, following: ORDER Petition is rejected. It is however clarified that any and all observations made herein are on prima facie consideration of material and only for purposes of this order and would not bind trial Court while passing final judgment. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 53