Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 554
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI, J
Padiappa @ Pradeep S/o. Shivabasu Sunagar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100288 OF 2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI ASHOK R.KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP
The court emphasized the necessity of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for bail, ruling that insufficient evidence against the petitioners warranted their release despite the seriousness of the charges.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 364, 302, 201 read with 149 - Grant of bail - Petitioners sought bail in a murder case linked to a property dispute, with allegations of conspiracy and contract killing - The court found insufficient direct evidence against the petitioners, noting the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence and confessions deemed inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. (Paras 1, 12, 16)
(B) Legal standard for bail - The court emphasized that the gravity of the offence does not negate the necessity for proof beyond a reasonable doubt - Deprivation of liberty is punitive and should not occur before conviction. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused in a murder case stemming from a property dispute involving the victim and his brother, who allegedly conspired to kill him to gain property rights. The victim was reported missing and later found dead in a river. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the prosecution's evidence against the petitioners was weak, primarily circumstantial, and there was no necessity for further custodial interrogation. (Paras 12, 16)
Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioners were entitled to bail considering the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented. (Paras 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without compelling evidence directly implicating the petitioners, they were entitled to bail, emphasizing that legal standards for conviction must be met even in serious offences. (Paras 15, 16)
Result: Petition allowed; petitioners released on bail with conditions.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)
This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( ‘BNSS’ for short,) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.112/2024 by Harugeri Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 120B, 364, 302 , 201 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) by accused no.3 to 5 (petitioners).
2. Sri Ashok R. Kalyanashetty, learned counsel for petitioners submitted, Smt.Bharati (complainant) filed complaint on 12.06.2024 stating that she was married to Irappa Alagonda Chougala (victim) since 12 years and residing at Sultanpur, with their three children and parents-in-law. Her sisters-in-law were married and residing with their husbands. She also stated that their family was holding lands at Sultanpur. Without any necessity, her brother-in-law Shrishail (accused no.1) expressed intention to sell 1 Acre of property by claiming it to be necessary to meet family necessity. Same was opposed by her. This had led to altercation with Shrishail who threatened that even if it necessitated murder of victim, he would achieve his objective. Due to threat, her husband had asked her to reside at her maternal home at Mugalkhod with children. Nevertheless, she used to visit her home every week, while victim stayed at Sultanpur.
3. It was further stated, in order to prevent accused no.1 from selling land, victim had filed suit before Civil Court at Raibag, which had further enraged petitioner and he frequently threatened to kill victim. On morning of 05.06.2024, her father- in-law called to enquire about victim, who went out of house at 10:00 pm previous day, had not returned and was missing and he was unable to contact him over phone. A missing complaint was also filed with Harugeri Police Station when victim was not traced anywhere.
4. At 5:00 p.m. on 12.06.2024, when she was at Mugalkhod, Rajashekhar Balchandra Naik and her brother Mahantesh informed her that accused no.1 had confessed about committing a grave mistake and asked for saving him. On enquiry, accused no.1 had told about altercation with victim over sale of land and his refusal to consent for withdrawal of civil suit had got him angry and assuming his murder would yield him entire property, had given supari (contract) to Bharmappa Balappa Naik (accused no.2) for Rs.14 Lakhs to murder victim. And at 9:30 p.m. on 04.06.2024, he along with Bharmappa and boys from Mudalagi village, kidnapped victim in Innova vehicle, killed victim and disposed of his body. But as he had given missing complaint to police, their frequent visits and enquiry had caused fear and therefore, he intended to sell 1 Acre of land and give share to complainant and sought help to escape from police case. But, he was advised to surrender before police. Complainant further stated, this indicated that accused no.1 had offered Rs.14 Lakhs to accused no.2 to murder victim and they along with boys from Mudalagi had kidnapped victim, killed him and disposed of his body. Based on complaint, Harugeri Police registered Crime no.112/2024 (supra).
5. It was submitted, initially only a missing complaint was filed. Even present complaint was registered against accused no.1, 2 and others. Therefore, without any basis petitioners were arraigned. In any case, there were no specific overt acts against any of petitioners or about manner of their involvement in murder of victim. It was submitted, present case was a mere property dispute between accused no.1 and victim, with which petitioners were not at all concerned. Thus, prosecution had failed to establish motive insofar as present petitioners. It was submitted, petitioners were arrested on 15.06.2024. And after completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed on 10.09.2024 citing 74 witnesses. Therefore, conclusion of trial was likely to be delayed.
6. It was further submitted, there were no eye- witnesses. Therefore, prosecution case was circumstantial. It was further submit
