Anticipatory bail denied due to insufficient evidence and serious charges against the petitioner, emphasizing the necessity to first approach the Sessions Court.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

1. Accused No.2 in Crime No.238 of 2024 registered by Renebennur Rural Police Station, Ranebennur Sub- Division, Haveri District for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC is before this Court under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 read with Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.238 of 2024 was registered by Renebennur Rural Police Station Ranebennur Sub-Division, Haveri District for the aforesaid offences against Prasad @ Guruprasad and the petitioner herein, based on the first information dated 09.09.2024 received from Smt. Yallappa Nagarajappa, mother of the deceased Ramu @ Ramesh. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed in the present case against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner who was arrested in Crime No.130 of 2024 was directed to be produced under body warranty before the Court in the present case. It is under these circumstances, he had filed a regular bail application before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No.82 of 2025, which was dismissed on merits by order dated 19.02.2025. Though the petitioner was produced under body warranty in the present case and given to Police custody for the purpose of investigation, thereafter, the learned Magistrate had remanded the petitioner to judicial custody in the original case i.e., in Crime No.130 of 2024 registered by Laxmeshwar Police Station and was not formally remanded to judicial custody in the present case. It appears that, subsequently the petitioner who was in judicial custody in Crime No.130 of 2024 was granted regular bail in the said case and he was released from jail. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no material to connect the petitioner to the crime. Allegation against the petitioner in the charge sheet is that, he had held the legs of the deceased Ramesh, while accused No.1 had assaulted the deceased on his head with a stone and committed his murder. He submits that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. He further submits that the High Court and Sessions Court have got concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the petition of anticipatory bail and therefore an application filed before this Court for anticipatory bail without first approaching Sessions Court is maintainable. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that accused Nos.1 and 2, who are persons with criminal antecedents, were arrested in Crime No.130 of 2024, which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 304(2) of the BNS, 2023. During the course of investigation in the said case, they had confessed to have committed the murder of Ramesh, who is none other than the elder brother of accused No.1. The first informant in the present case is the mother of accused No.1. She submits that the petitioner has not approached the jurisdictional Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail and on the other hand, he has directly approached this Court and therefore, his petition cannot be entertained. She submits that, even on the merits of the case, his regular bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court and therefore, the question of entertaining his anticipatory bail application does not arise. Accused Nos.1 and 2, who were in custody in Crime No.130 of 2024 were enlarged on bail in the said case