Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18811
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
VENKATESH NAIK T, J
DASTAGEER S/O MAREMASAB HUNASHYL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102502 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI JAGADISH PATIL
For the Respondents: SMT. KIRTILATA PATIL
Bail may be granted despite serious charges if evidence is insufficient and trial delays infringe upon constitutional rights.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 364, 302, 201, and 149 - Bail - Granting bail to the accused in cases of charges involving serious offences like murder depends on the evaluation of evidence and potential panic concerning witness tampering - In the present case, the court found no eyewitnesses and noted the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. (Paras 2, 4, 6, and 8)
(B) Right to Life - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Delay in trial - The Supreme Court has recognized that delays in trials can violate fundamental rights, thereby justifying the grant of bail when combined with other factors supporting the petitioner's release. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner opposed the allegation of involvement in a murder case linked to property disputes within a family, asserting false implications without overt acts against him, citing delays in the trial and earlier bail grants to co-accused as grounds for his own bail.
Findings of Court:
Recognizing a lack of eyewitness testimony and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, the court found the petitioner entitled to bail, emphasizing the gravity of the charges was balanced by the need for fairness in trial proceedings.
Issues: The key issues included assessing the adequacy of evidence against the petitioner, the implications of delays in the trial, and equal treatment regarding bail for co-accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court adopted the principle that without solid prima facie evidence, especially with the absence of direct eyewitness accounts, bail may be granted, particularly if there is a risk of trial delays infringing on constitutional rights.
Result: Criminal petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner on bail, subject to specified conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. outline of complaint regarding familial property conflict leading to a murder. (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner's argument regarding false implication and previous bail grants. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's analysis regarding witness testimony and evidentiary gaps. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. balancing seriousness of charges with fairness in trial and potential bail. (Para 8) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) The petitioner/accused No.7 has filed this petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , for grant of regular bail in Crime No.112 of 2024 registered by Harugeri Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 120B, 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
12.06.2024, the first informant lodged a complaint alleging that she was married to Irappa Chougale (victim) about 12 years back and both were residing at Sultanpur Village with their three children and parents-in-law. The family was holding lands at Sultanpur. However, without any necessity, her brother-in-law, Shrishail (accused No.1) expressed intention to sell 1 acre of joint family property by claiming it to be necessary to meet family necessity. Same was opposed by her. This led to altercation with Shrishail and he threatened that even if it necessitated murder of Irappa Chougale, he would achieve his objective. Due to threat, her husband asked her to reside at her maternal home at Mugalkhod with children. Nevertheless, she used to visit her home every week, while Irappa Chougale stayed at Sultanpur.
It was further contended that, in order to prevent accused No.1 from selling the land, Irappa Chougale filed a suit before the Civil Court at Raibag, which had further enraged accused No.1 and he frequently threatened to kill Irappa Chougale. On 05.06.2024 in the morning, her father-in-law called to enquire about the Irappa Chougale, who went out of house at 10:00 p.m. previous day, had not returned and was missing and he was unable to contact him over phone. Thus, a missing complaint was lodged on 06.06.2024.
On 12.06.2024 at 5.00 p.m., 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 informed about altercation with Irappa Chougale 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 Bharamappa Balappa Naik (accused No.2) for Rs.14 lakh for commission of murder of Irappa Chougale and at 9:30 p.m., on 04.06.2024, he along with Bharamappa and boys from Mudalagi Village, kidnapped Irappa Chougale in Innova car, killed him and disposed of his body. Based on the complaint, Harugeri Police registered a case in Crime No.112 of 2024.
3. Heard Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Kirtilata Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.7 has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not involved in the case. There is no overt act against the petitioner. The only allegation is that the petitioner made criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 5 in commission of murder. Later, the petitioner along with other accused persons thrown the dead body in Krishna river. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Further, on 24-2-2025 in Criminal Petition No.100288 of 2025, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted bail to accused Nos.3 to 5, and on 11-6-2025 in Criminal Petition No.101872 of 2025, this Court granted bail to accused No.2.
Learned counsel further contended that the Investigating Officer has concluded the investigation and filed charge-sheet. Now
