Karnataka High Court
Shivappa S/O Siddappa Badiger vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2025
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1650
CRL.P No. 103861 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103861 OF 2024
[439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
SHIVAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA BADIGER,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. PYATI ONI, TADAKOD,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD, PIN-581105.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI T.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
GARAD P.S. REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally
signed by
MANJANNA
BENCH DHARWAD, PIN-580011.
MANJANNA E
E Date:
2025.01.29
... RESPONDENT
10:00:10
+0530 (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.
(483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO RELEASE THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN SC NO.39/2024 ARISING OUT
OF GARAG CRIME NO.248/2023 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC.302 AND 201 OF IPC AGAINST HIM, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DHARWAD, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.01.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY THE COURT, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1650
CRL.P No. 103861 of 2024
CAV 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.248/2023 by Garag Police Station for
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian
Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') by sole accused (Petitioner).
2. Sri TR Patil, learned counsel for petitioner
submitted case of prosecution was that Smt.Roopa w/o Suresh
Devaravar filed complaint on 24.12.2023 that about seven
months earlier, petitioner who was running Tea Shop and
having a B.E. passed son, borrowed Rs.60,000/- from her
husband Suresh (victim). But even after repeated demand,
petitioner had not returned money and had maintained grudge
against Suresh. It was further stated that at 3:00 p.m. on
21.12.2023, when Suresh went to Tea Shop and demanded
money, petitioner had abused him and returned Rs.30,000/-.
3. Thereafter at 6:30 p.m. on 24.12.2023, Suresh had
left home on his motorcycle informing complainant that he was
going to Amminbhavi. And that complainant had seen petitioner
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1650
CRL.P No. 103861 of 2024
carrying a satchel and sitting behind Suresh. Later at 8:15
p.m., someone called her father-in-law to inform him that
someone had killed Suresh by hitting him on his head with
Crowbar and he was lying near land of Toggi on Uppin Betageri
- Haro Belavadi road. On reaching spot, she noted petitioner
who was pillion rider behind her husband Suresh (victim) was
missing, but his foot wear were found nearby. On enquiry, she
heard that at 8:00 p.m. when petitioner was riding with victim,
petitioner had hit victim on his head with Crowbar killing him
and with intention to hide/destroy evidence of murder, had
sought to make it look like a motor accident. Said complaint
was registered as Crime no.248/2023 by Garag Police Station
for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
4. It was submitted on 26.12.2023, petitioner was
arrested. Though, he had filed bail petition in SC no.39/2024,
same was dismissed by order dated 22.07.2024 without proper
consideration. It was submitted, investigation was already
completed and charge-sheet was filed on 31.01.2024. Same
would reveal that there were no eye-witnesses to incident and
entire case of prosecution was dependent on circumstantial
evidence. It was submitted, in her statement recorded by
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1650
CRL.P No. 103861 of 2024
Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short 'CrPC'), complainant had stated
amount borrowed from deceased by petitioner was Rs.60,000/-
but in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, she
alleged that amount borrowed was Rs.2,00,000/-. Likewise,
there was contradiction about time of receipt of information
about her husband's death and about her returning home from
Shandy. It was submitted injuries noted in PM Report were Cut
Lacerated Wounds (CLW) which could be caused only by a
sharp object like knife or machete. And as there were no ocular
witnesses to incident, all witnesses were hear-say witnesses. It
was further pointed out, bag stated to have been carried by
petitioner herein was not recovered. It was further submitted,
as per prosecution description of murder weapon Crowbar was
55 inches in length and 5 inches in diameter, which was
concealed by petitioner in satchel, which was totally improbable
casting grave doubt about prosecution version.
5. It was further submitted, petitioner was arrested on
26.12.2023, while charge-sheet was filed on 31.01.2024 and
petitioner had already spent more than a year in custody.
Further, as prosecution had shown 34 witnesses in charge-
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1650
CRL.P No. 103861 of 2024
sheet, conclusion of trial was likely to be delayed. On above
grounds, sought for allowing bail petition. It was also
submitted, there no criminal antecedents. On above grounds,
learned counsel sought for allowing petition by imposing
conditions.
6. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for
respondent - State opposed petition. It was submitted,
petitioner was charge-sheeted for commission of heinous
offence of murder. Though, there were no direct witnesses,
material collected by prosecution indicated strong
circumstantial evidence as complainant had seen petitioner
going along with deceased on motorcycle, on date of incident.
It was also pointed out that in his statement under Section 161
of CrPC, petitioner had confessed about crime and had led to
recovery of murder weapon. Offences alleged were punishable
with death or imprisonment for life. Material collected also
indicated elaborate planning and preparation and also attempt
at destroying evidence. On above grounds, sought rejection of
petition.
7. Heard learned counsel and perused material on
record.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1650
CRL.P No. 103861 of 2024
8. From above, point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether petitioner is entitled for
regular bail on conditions?"
9. This is petition for regular bail is by sole accused in
Crime no.248/2023 by Garag Police Station for offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, which are not
only heinous and grave but also carry maximum sentence of
death or imprisonment for life.
10. Admittedly, deceased was found dead with
traumatic injuries. Contents of complaint filed by wife of victim
includes particulars about motive and preparation. She claims
to have seen petitioner going to Amminbhavi on motorcycle
along with victim as pillion rider carrying satchel, in which he
allegedly hid murder weapon. Complainant is filed without any
apparent unexplained delay. Prima facie examination of charge-
sheet material reveals that statements of complainant (CW-1),
Owner and server of Shri Hotel, Uppina Betageri (CWs-18 and
19, where victim and petitioner had dinner and statement of
Petrol Pump employee (CW-7) where they were seen together
filling fuel into motorcycle and which was also recorded in CC
Camera which is claimed to be strong circumstantial evidence
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1650
CRL.P No. 103861 of 2024
(i.e. last seen). Apart from above, prosecution also seeks to
rely on statement of accused coupled with recovery of murder
weapon. It is also claimed that petitioner's foot wear along with
that of victim were found near spot of incident. Though, Post
Mortem Examination Report shows cause of death as "due to
shock and hemorrhage due to injuries sustained" and injuries
noted are CLW, dimensions of injuries which are several
centimetres in length, width and depth near occipital region
with as many fractures of skull and exposure of brain tissue not
only indicates brutality of murder but does not rule out
possibility of being inflicted by murder weapon seized namely
chisel. Indeed, whether prosecution is able to establish above
circumstances beyond reasonable doubt can be examined only
after conclusion of trial. Until then accused would be entitled to
claim innocence and seek protection from deprivation of liberty
as undertrial.
11. Insofar as contention urged that the satchel which
petitioner was stated to have carried while going along with
victim on date of incident, was not seized would not hold as
blood stained satchel was found and seized.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1650
CRL.P No. 103861 of 2024
12. Indeed, dimension of murder weapon is shown to
be 55 inches in length with 5 inches in circumference in seizure
panchanama, would make it appear inconsistent with
prosecution case, same cannot be sole basis for granting bail as
it would still be open for prosecution to explain.
13. Indisputably, offence alleged (murder) is
punishable with death or imprisonment for life and there
appears sufficient material for prosecution to proceed to trial.
Moreover, petitioner is also alleged to have committed offence
of destruction of evidence. Thus, point for consideration is
answered in negative. Consequently, following:
ORDER
Petition is rejected. It is however clarified
that any and all observations made herein are on
prima facie consideration of material and only for
purposes of this order and would not bind trial
Court while passing final judgment.
SD/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
CT:PA
