Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22768
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M G UMA, J
SOMALU S/O THAKARU PAWAR, HEMU @ PAPPU S/O LALU RATHOD – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201267 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Application
Act Referred
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: S.103, S.238
Headnote
(B) Bail - The court emphasized that in cases involving serious offences, bail should be denied if there is substantial evidence against the accused - The absence of eyewitnesses does not automatically entitle one to bail if the investigations reveal incriminating evidence. (Paras 4 and 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused connected to a serious crime involving a burnt corpse as reported in an FIR; despite their claims of no incriminatory evidence, materials were seized during the investigation.
Findings of Court:
Due to the ongoing investigation and the nature of the crime, the petitioners were not entitled to bail at this time.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioners could be granted bail given the state of the ongoing investigation and evidence available.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the absence of eyewitnesses does not negate the seriousness of the accusations or deny the connection to the evidence gathered, highlighting the ongoing status of the investigation.
Result: Petition dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Syed Mastan
For the Respondents: Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadav
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek bail under allegations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court reviews materials and evidence. (Para 3) |
| 3. facts indicate absence of eyewitness testimony. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court denies bail based on evidence insufficiency. (Para 6) |
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA)
The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court, seeking grant of bail under Section 483 of BNS S, 2023 in Crime No.65/2025 of Wadi Police Station, Chittapur Circle, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103 (1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’), pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) and JMFC, Chittapur, Kalaburagi.
2. Heard Sri Syed Mastan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
Perused the materials on record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023?
My answer to the above point is in the ‘Negative’ for the following:
R E A S O N S
4. Initially, the FIR came to be registered by Wadi police against an unknown person on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Monappa, who stated that, he came to know about the burnt dead body of a female aged 30 to 35 years with a rope tied around the toe and also found the plastic can. Accordingly, the FIR came to be registered against unknown person for having caused the death of the deceased. The daughter of the deceased identified the dead body. The investigation was undertaken. These petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended on 06.06.2025. Their voluntary statements were said to have been recorded. The car, the plastic can and towel which were used in commission of the offence were said to have been seized by the Investigating Officer. It is stated that, few incriminating materials were seized from the spot, where the dead body was found.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and there are no incriminating materials to connect the petitioners to the offence in question. But, the fact remains that, the investigation is still in progress. It is stated that, few incriminating materials were already seized on the basis of the voluntary statements of the accused. Final report is not yet filed.
6. Taking into consideration the nature and seriousness of the offence, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail at this stage. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
