SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH 
VENKATESH NAIK T., J.
Rahul S/o Saidappa Pujari - Appellant 
Versus
The State of Karnataka - Respondent 
Criminal Petition No. 102167, 102169, 102171 of 2025
Decided On : 01-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : J. Basavaraj
For the Respondent: Jairam Siddi

The court emphasized the principle that bail may be granted with conditions to prevent tampering with evidence, while considering the severity of charges against the accused involved.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 189(1), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 126(1), 118(1), 118(2), 103(1), 109(1), 352, 351(2), 190 - Bail Applications - Three petitions filed for bail concerning different accused in a murder case; denied for certain accused due to severity of allegations, while granting bail to others with conditions. (Paras 2, 3, 5, 7)

(B) Criminal Law - The court evaluated the severity of allegations, character of petitioners, and possibility of witness tampering against the backdrop of ongoing investigation. The principle of bail being a right subject to conditions was reaffirmed. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The case involves multiple accused charged with the murder of a deceased whose brother filed a complaint after the deceased was fatally assaulted during an altercation over a banner. Allegations against certain accused lack substantial evidence as the primary aggression was by two specific individuals.

Findings of Court:
Bail was granted to several accused, contingent upon specific conditions such as attendance at the police station and non-tampering of evidence.

Issues: The court addressed the determination of bail eligibility in light of serious charges and the evidence against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that bail applications should be assessed on the principles of law concerning the nature of the crime, character of the accused, and potential risks of tampering with evidence.

Result: Criminal Petitions allowed with stipulated conditions.

Table of Content
1. facts leading to the bail petitions (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments for and against bail (Para 4 , 5)
3. court analysis of evidence and allegations (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. bail granted with conditions (Para 9)

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri. J. Basavaraj, the learned counsel for petitioners and Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

2. Criminal Petition No.102167/2025 is filed by accused No.13, Criminal Petition No.102169/2025 is filed by accused Nos.4, 5, 6, 8 and 11 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) and Criminal Petition No.102171/2025 is filed by accused Nos.7 and 9 under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( Section 438 of Cr.P.C.) for grant of bail for the offences punishable under Sections 189 (1), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 126(1), 118(1), 118(2), 103(1), 109(1), 352, 351(2), 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Since these three petitions arising out of same Crime No.110/2025 of Mudhol P.S., common order is being passed.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

The first informant – Sri. Basavaraj Shivappa Sheelvant filed a complaint before the respondent – Police alleging that his deceased brother Manjunath had studied at Malapur village and he had friends at Malapur. As the deceased Manjunath had a garden belonging to his uncle in Malapur, the deceased was visiting the Malapur often and often. About one year back, as the sister of the accused No.3 Meena was talking with deceased Manjunath over the telephone, the accused No.2-Anil Nagappa Mang and accused No.3-Akash Durgappa Mang were angry on the deceased Manjunath and also had given life threat to the deceased Manjunath. It is also alleged that four days prior to the alleged incident, there was a fair of Laxmidevi at Malapur. The deceased Manjunath had affixed the banner of his photo along with the photos of his friends near the arch proceedings towards Laxmidevi temple. The said banner was torn. On 13.03.2025 at about 12:45 p.m. when the deceased Manjunath along with his friend Yallaling went to the accused persons to ask about the torn banner, the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and abused the deceased Manjunath in filthy language questioning that “you are not the resident of Malapur; why you have affixed your banners in Malapur?” They further stated that, they had torn the banners. Afterwards the accused persons abused the deceased Manjunath and Yallaling in filthy language and assaulted with the hands. As a result of assault by the accused persons, both the Manjunath and his friend Yallaling tried to escape through Mallapur bus stand, the accused persons followed both Manjunath and Yallaling and accused Nos.3 to 10 along with some other persons, caught hold of Manjunath and Yallaling and assaulted both of them by hands and legs. When the accused persons were talking of killing of deceased Manjunath, the accused No.1 – Praveen Shankar Mang stabbed the deceased Manjunath with his knife forcibly on the left chest of the deceased Manjunath and also on the ankle of the right hand causing grievous injuries. The accused No.2 assaulted Manunath with the knife on the stomach forcibly causing injuries, and also assaulted Yallaling with knife by piercing on the back of the neck and caused injuries. It is also alleged that the deceased Manjunath succumbed to the injuries while he was on way to Mudhol Government hospital at 01:20 a.m. and thereby committed the alleged offence. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged, which led to the registration of an FIR and initiation of investigation. During the course of the investigation, accused Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 13 were arrested and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. However, anticipating their possible arrest by the Police, Accused Nos.7 and 9 filed petitions for anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are innocent, have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top