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
| 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
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.