- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:316 CRL.P No. 104681 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104681 OF 2025 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI CHINNAPPA S/O ANNAPPA BENNUR AGE 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BENAKATTI TQ. DIST. BAGALKOT PIN 587111 &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI, BAGALKOT RURAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SPP OFFICE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD PIN 580011. &RESPONDENT (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 483 OF BNSS, 2023, R/W. 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE HIM ON BAIL IN BAGALKOT RURAL PS CRIME NO. 126/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 103(1) OF BNS-2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN SO FAR AS PRESENT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1 IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:316 CRL.P No. 104681 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. The petition is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, <the BNSS=) with the following prayer: <wherefore the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon9ble court may be pleased to enlarge him on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit in Bagalkot rural PS Crime No.126/2025 for the offences punishable u/s 103(1) of BNS-2023 pending on the file of Prl. Dist and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote in so far as present petitioner/accused no. 1 is concerned, in the interest of justice and equity.= 3. The facts in a nutshell for disposal of the present petition are as follows: The petitioner is the accused who has been charge- sheeted for the offence under Section 103(1) of BNSS, 2023. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:316 CRL.P No. 104681 of 2025 4. The complaint averments reveal that the complainant was living with his wife and children, while his elder brother, Bhimappa, lived separately in Benakatti with his family. 5. The deceased-Maltesh, had a car which he sold about eight months prior to the incident and also had Rs.2,00,000/- in cash. The accused borrowed this sum but failed to repay it despite repeated demands. 6. On 29.06.2025, Maltesh proceeded on a motorcycle, stating that he was visiting the accused to recover the loan amount. At about 07:00 p.m., the complainant was informed by Bhimappa, a villager, that the accused had assaulted Maltesh with an iron pickaxe, resulting in his death. 7. The complainant, along with the mother of the deceased and Krishna, proceeded to the place of the incident and found the body of Maltesh lying on the road. 8. Based on the complaint, the police registered a case, conducted a thorough investigation, and filed a charge sheet. CWs.9 and 10 are cited as eyewitnesses. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:316 CRL.P No. 104681 of 2025 voluntary statement of the accused was recorded, and the weapon used in the incident was seized. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Srinivas B. Naik, reiterated the grounds raised in the bail petition and further contended that the alleged eyewitnesses appear to be implanted, as their statements suggest the assault occurred around 09:00 p.m., whereas the death was reported at 07:00 p.m., indicating a prima facie contradiction. 10. The material on record, at most, indicates an incident of homicidal death not amounting to murder; therefore, the continued custody of the accused is not warranted. 11. Learned High Court Government Pleader, Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, contended that the material on record clearly discloses a motive, i.e., non-payment of the loan by the accused. 12. The weapon used was deadly in the nature, and the assault targeted vital parts of the deceased9s body, demonstrating clear intent to cause death. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:316 CRL.P No. 104681 of 2025 13. Thus, the case prima facie constitutes murder, punishable with life imprisonment or death, and the gravity of the offence disentitles the petitioner from getting an order of bail at least at this stage. 14. On perusal of the material on record, it is clear that there was a loan transaction between the deceased and the accused, with repeated demands for repayment, which the accused postponed. 15. The complainant saw the deceased proceeding to the accused9s house for recovery of the loan and was later informed at 07:00 p.m. that the deceased had been assaulted. 16. CWs.9 and 10, cited as eyewitnesses, stated that the assault occurred around 09:00 p.m. This contradiction is to be tested during trial. Statements recorded by the investigation officer are previous statements and cannot be treated as conclusive proof at the bail stage. 17. The weapon used was deadly, and injuries, as per the post-mortem report, were found on the head and vital parts, including the abdomen. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:316 CRL.P No. 104681 of 2025 18. At this stage, the Court cannot accept the petitioner9s argument that the incident could be scaled down from murder to homicidal death not amounting to murder by holding a mini trial 19. The petitioner is at liberty to apply for successive bail if there is a positive change in circumstances during the trial. 20. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 7