Karnataka High Court
Nagaraj S/O Hemaraddi Somaraddi vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2025
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2223
CRL.P No. 100120 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100120 OF 2025
[439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJ S/O. HEMARADDI SOMARADDI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. HALYAL VILLAGE, TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580023.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.M.BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HUBBALLI RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally
signed by
MALLIKARJUN
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011.
MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
KALMATH
Date:
2025.02.06
14:17:09
... RESPONDENT
+0530
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C.
(483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ON REGULAR BAIL IN
CONNECTION WITH HUBBALLI RURAL P.S.CR.NO.117/2024
(S.C.NO.5069/2024) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S. 302, 120B R/W. 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF V ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS, DHARWAD,
SITTING AT HUBBALLI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2223
CRL.P No. 100120 of 2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail in Crime no.117/2024 of Hubli Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) by accused no.2 (petitioner).
2. Sri V.M.Banakar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted as per prosecution case, a complaint was filed by Moulasab on 13.05.2024 at 1:00 p.m. stating that his parents were originally from Harishinageri village of Mundgod taluk, but were residing in Hallyal village of Hubballi taluk since 40 years. Complainant and his elder brother Sharifsab were married and they were residing in separate houses in village. And on 12.05.2024 he received information at 10:00 p.m. about his brother being found injured in school, he went there and saw Sharifsab lying dead in pool of blood with injuries on his head, face and limbs. It was further stated that on 9:00 p.m. victim and Shashidhar - accused no.1 had been to Egg rice shop of -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2223 CRL.P No. 100120 of 2025 Dhawalsab - CW.17 and ordered parcel and went into school but not found later. Therefore, he suspected accused no.1 had with intention of murdering victim had used flooring tile stone or some other weapon and committed murder. Based on said complaint Crime no.117/2024 was registered and petitioner was arrested on 13.05.2024. It was submitted on same day statement was recorded. Thereafter prosecution filed charge sheet on 26.07.2024. As per prosecution, bloodstained clothes were recovered. Provisions under which accused were charge sheeted were punishable under Sections 302, 34 and 120B of IPC. It was submitted though in complaint, complainant had not disclosed name of petitioner, prosecution had included it in charge sheet, on ground that there was conspiracy between accused no.1 and 2 to murder victim. It was however submitted that, witnesses cited in charge sheet did not include any person examined in support of conspiracy.
3. It was further submitted though prosecution intended to rely on two circumstances, firstly, last seen theory, on basis of statement given by CW.14 that victim along with accused no.1 come to egg rice shop and ordered parcel and went towards school and thereafter victim was found dead, in -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2223 CRL.P No. 100120 of 2025 statement recorded under Section 164, CW.14 had stated seeing only deceased coming to his shop for parcel and had not stated about seeing accused no.1. Statement of CW.15 would not implicate any one, while statement of CW.16 was only to effect that he had seen accused no.1 and 2 running on tank bund by stating that they had quarreled with victim. But before said statement, CW.16 had stated that he had already heard about murder. It was submitted, only overt-acts insofar as petitioner - accused no.2 was about pushing victim causing him to fall down and thereafter accused no.1 dropping a flooring tile stone on head of victim and thereafter strangulated him by keeping foot on his neck.
4. It was submitted postmortem report would show, cause of death as due to asphyxia as a result of compression of neck. It was submitted, above material would not in any manner implicate petitioner or directly incriminate against him. Only basis for arraigning petitioner is alleged recovery of bloodstained clothes and FSL report finding stained with blood, apart from confessional statement of petitioner. It was submitted, whether clothes stained with blood belonged to that of victim or otherwise would be matter for trial. Hon'ble -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2223 CRL.P No. 100120 of 2025 Supreme Court time and again stated that confessional statements on reliable. On above ground submitted since charge sheet was already filed and at present matter was pending at stage of hearing before charge. Therefore, conclusion of trial was likely to be delayed. Since petitioner was in custody from date of his arrest i.e., 13.05.2024, therefore petitioner entitled to grant bail on condition.
5. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader sought to oppose petition. It was submitted offences alleged against accused were of murder with common intention and also conspiring to cause murder, which were heinous and punishable with maximum period of imprisonment for life and also death.
6. It was submitted there is specific overt-acts in charge sheet insofar as petitioner and in course of investigation, investigating officer had recorded statement of several persons including CW.14 about last seen and CW.16 who had heard accused no.1 and 2 stating about quarrel with victim, while they were running away and also confession by accused before investigating officer, leading to recovery of -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2223 CRL.P No. 100120 of 2025 bloodstained clothes. Thus, there was sufficient material to support charges and as offences alleged were heinous and prosecution witnesses were from same village, in case of grant of bail, there would be every chance of petitioner tampering prosecution witnesses. On above ground sought for rejection of bail petition.
7. Heard learned counsel.
8. From above, only point that would arise for consideration is:
"Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail with conditions?"
9. This petition is for regular bail by petitioner - accused no.2 for offences mentioned above. Petitioner is charged and conspiring with common intention of murdering victim. Though offence of murder would be heinous in nature, specific overt-acts insofar as petitioner is that, he pushed victim causing him to fall down, thereafter accused no.1 picked up a flooring tile stone and dropped it on head of victim and later strangulating him by keeping foot on his neck. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2223 CRL.P No. 100120 of 2025
10. Indeed prosecution seeks to rely on statement of CW.17 about motive for murder being that, victim had stolen clothes from shop belonging to CW.17 and when accused demanded payment for same, victim had retorted leading to quarrel and consequently murder. However, there does not appear to be any relation between petitioner and CW.17, it would appear that CW.17 was relative of accused no.1.
11. Prima facie prosecution appears to be relying upon two circumstances, last seen theory based on statement of CW.14, however, in his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC, did not state about seeing either of accused. Therefore it would appear prosecution is relying on confessional statement of petitioner before Investigating Officer. Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Ratnu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1667 and Randeep Singh @ Rana and Anr. v. State of Haryana, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3383, explained circumstances under which extra judicial confessions could be relied upon stating that they would weak form of evidence. Though FSL report would indicate clothes of petitioner as stained with blood, whether same were stained with blood of -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2223 CRL.P No. 100120 of 2025 victim as a result of incident in question would require to be established during trial. Since investigation is completed and charge sheet filed, it would appear there would be no further need for custodial interrogation of petitioner and concerns of prosecution about interference or influencing of prosecution witnesses etc. could be addressed by imposing certain conditions. Consequently, point for consideration is answered in the affirmative. Hence following:
ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner - accused No.2 is released on regular bail in Crime no.117/2024 of Hubli Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 and 120B of IPC, subject to following conditions:
a) Petitioner - accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of Court.
b) He shall not threaten or tamper with any prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.
c) He shall not involve in any criminal activities.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2223 CRL.P No. 100120 of 2025
d) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings.
e) He shall forthwith inform any change of his residence to Investigating Officer.
f) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie and shall not influence final outcome after trial.
SD/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13