- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:44 CRL.P No. 104263 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104263 OF 2025 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SUBRAYA S/O. HANUMANTA NAIK AGE 50 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER R/O. GUNDABALA, HEBBAIL, TQ. HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. CHITRA M. GOUNDALKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HONNAVARA POLICE STATION R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD 580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 483 OF THE BNSS, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN S.C. NO.8/2025 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR, BEING TRIED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 103(1) OF BNS, REGISTERED WITH HONNAVARA POLICE IN CRIME NO.264/2024, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:44 CRL.P No. 104263 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Smt.Chitra M. Goundalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. The petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, ‘the BNSS’) seeks the following reliefs: “to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in S.C. No.8/2025 on the file of Prl. District and sessions judge Uttara Kannada, Karwar, being tried for the offence punishable u/s 103(1) of BNS, registered with Honnavara police in Crime No.264/2024”. 3. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for the disposal of the present petition, are as follows: Based on the complaint lodged by Smt. Mangala, W/o Nagesh Naik, with the Honnavara Police, a case came to be registered in Crime No.264/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’) on 04.12.2024. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:44 CRL.P No. 104263 of 2025 4. The gist of the averments in the complaint would reveal that there was previous enmity between the petitioner and the deceased. The deceased is none other than the younger brother of the petitioner herein. 5. There were no issues to the complainant and the deceased. On that regard frequent insults were allegedly made by the petitioner, which had earlier resulted in the deceased assaulting the petitioner with an iron rod. 6. After the said assault, there was serious enmity between the deceased and the petitioner and the petitioner was allegedly threatening the deceased that she would take away his life. 7. When the matter stood thus, on 03.12.2024 at about 7:00 p.m., while the deceased was taking dinner, the petitioner came there, picked a quarrel, and reminded the deceased of the earlier assault and thereafter took out a knife and stabbed him on the chest, on the right eye and other parts of the body, resulting in profuse bleeding. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:44 CRL.P No. 104263 of 2025 8. Immediately, complainant raised an alarm. On hearing it, neighbours by the names of Marati Naik and Bharat Naik came to the scene of the incident. 9. On seeing them, the petitioner ran away from the spot. Thereafter, with the help of the said Marati Naik and Bharat Naik, the injured was shifted to Honnavara Police Station at about 10:05 p.m. The doctor who examined the husband of the complainant informed her that her husband had expired. The matter was informed to the police, and the Honnavara Police, based on the written complaint of the complainant, registered the case at 1:55 a.m. on 04.12.2024. Thereafter, a detailed investigation was conducted, and a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner. 10. The attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order granting bail was rejected by the learned Trial Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Hon’ble Court. 11. Smt. Chitra M. Goundalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since the charge sheet has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:44 CRL.P No. 104263 of 2025 been filed, continuation of the custody of the petitioner is no longer warranted. 12. She would further contend that the complaint itself specifically states that the deceased had assaulted the petitioner with an iron rod and, therefore, at the most, the incident could be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Consequently, the gravity of the offence is considerably reduced, and the continuation of the accused in judicial custody is thus, no longer warranted. 13. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the bail petition by contending that the petitioner is an eyewitness to the incident and that, soon after Marati Naik and Bharat Naik arrived, the petitioner ran away from the scene without taking any steps to shift the injured to the hospital. 14. Therefore, the intention of the petitioner to take away the life of the deceased is to be gathered from the totality of the circumstances, which are sufficient to term the incident as murder and thus sought for dismissal of the bail petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:44 CRL.P No. 104263 of 2025 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has meticulously perused the material on record. On such perusal, it is crystal clear that the incident occurred in the house of the deceased. The petitioner is none other than the brother of the deceased. There was previous enmity between the deceased and the petitioner, which appears to be the motive for the petitioner taking away the life of the deceased, inasmuch as the deceased had assaulted the petitioner with an iron rod on an earlier occasion when the petitioner had insulted the deceased and the complainant by calling them useless people. 16. Suffice to say that the material collected by the Investigation Agency, in the form of the recovery of the knife, the averments in the complaint, the statement of the injured witness, the statement of the eyewitness being the complainant, and the statements of Marati Naik and Bharat Naik, coupled with the post-mortem report, makes out a prima facie case of murder. Same would definitely come in the way of exercising the discretionary power vested in this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:44 CRL.P No. 104263 of 2025 Court under Section 483 of the BNSS to accept the bail request of the petitioner. 17. It is always open to the petitioner to approach this Court with a successive bail application if there is a positive change in the circumstances of the case during the course of the trial. 18. With that liberty, the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 7