Arun S/O. Hanumanthappa vs State Of Karnataka

Venkatesh Naik T, J

Heard the learned counsel Sri. J.S. Shetty for the petitioner and the learned HCGP Smt. Kirthilata Patil for the respondent – State.

The petitioner – accused No.2 has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. [Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.36/2025 [C.C. No.1294/2025] for the offences punishable under Sections 332(c), 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

On the basis of a complaint lodged by the first informant, Sri Shailesh Garapatti, the Police registered a case on 18.02.2025. In the said complaint, it is alleged that the deceased, Premalata—wife of the late Ajjappa Reddy Banakar—was a relative of the informant. Premalata was residing alone on the outskirts of Teredahalli village. Her husband had passed away several years ago, and the couple had no children. Due to the absence of any immediate family, she had been living by herself.

On 16.02.2025, at about 07:45 a.m., the first informant received information that some unknown persons had entered the house of the deceased, Premalata, and committed her murder by assaulting her with a heavy stone on the head. Pursuant to this information, the informant lodged a complaint with the Police. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that accused No.1, with an intent to unlawfully acquire the property of the deceased Premalata, conspired with other accused persons. It is alleged that the co-accused instigated and aided in the execution of the murder plan. As a result, the names of the accused persons were included in the First Information Report. The Investigating Officer carried out a detailed investigation and subsequently filed a charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the aforementioned offences. On the same day, i.e., 16.02.2025, accused No.2 – the petitioner herein – was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no specific overt act attributed against the petitioner, nor has any incriminating material been recovered from him. The only substantial allegations and recovery pertain to accused No.1, from whom the wooden club and rope, reportedly used in the commission of the murder, were seized. The sole allegation against the petitioner is that he allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Burujinakoppa, Hiriyur Taluk, and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the petition be allowed.

Per contra, learned HCGP filed the statement of objections contending that the petitioner is involved in an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, and there exists a prima facie case against him. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood that he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and obstruct the course of the trial. In view of the serious nature and gravity of the offence, learned HCGP contended that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Accordingly, he prayed for the rejection of the bail petition.

Upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is noted that the Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, has filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4. The petitioner, being accused No.2, is alleged to be a conspirator who conspired with accused Nos.1, 3, and 4 for the commission of the offence. It is stated that accused No.1 went to the house of the deceased, Premalata, instigated a quarrel, assaulted her with a wooden club, and subsequently threw a heavy stone on her head, thereby causing her death. So far as nature of conspiracy, the Trial Court would assess the extent of the petitioner’s involvement, the level of planning, and the specific role he played in the conspiracy. The strength of material collected against the petitioner appears to be not crucial one. The investigation report reveals that accused No.1 made a voluntary statement leading to the seizure of the wooden club and heavy stone. However, nothing has been recovered from accused No.2. Apart from the voluntary statement of accused No.1, no other material has been placed on record to directly connect accused No.2 with the commission of the offence, nor has any motive been attributed to him. Now, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet has been filed. The matter has been committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Upon perusal of the entire prosecution record, it is evident that at this juncture there is no material on record against accused No.2 to attract the offence under Section 302 of IPC, as the primary allegation is directed solely against accused No.1. The charge sheet material clearly discloses that, the petitioner – accused No.2 is not a flight risk and will not interfere wit the trial / investigation.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, looking into the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, gravity of offence, severity of punishment, chances of petitioner absconding or fleeing away from justice if released on bail, character and antecedents of the petitioner tampering of the prosecution witnesses, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The petitioner – accused No.2 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.36/2025 of respondent – Police Station on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses and shall not threaten the witnesses.

ii. The petitioner shall appear before the Court regularly without fail.

iii. The petitioner shall not involve himself in similar offences.

NOTE: The above observation is made only for disposal of this petition.