Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
VENKATESH NAIK T.
Rahul S/o Saidappa Pujari – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
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. Ab
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.
The court denied anticipatory bail based on the grave nature of allegations and the risk of evidence tampering, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges faced by the petitioners.
Direct participation in a crime is essential for denying bail; mere mention in a complaint is insufficient without evidence of involvement.
The court denied bail due to the gravity of the charges, ongoing investigation, and potential risks of evidence tampering by the accused.
A court may deny anticipatory bail if credible evidence, such as a suicide note linking the accused to the suicide, exists, regardless of initial non-inclusion in complaint.
Bail may be granted even in serious offences if the accused's fair trial rights are violated, and no compelling reason for continued incarceration exists.
The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail cannot be denied based on vague, omnibus allegations lacking specific overt acts attributed to each accused.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
