Siddu Jcb vs The State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 2922 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Siddu Jcb vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 April, 2026

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2026:KHC-K:3036
                                                        CRL.P No. 200471 of 2026


                      HC-KAR



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                                        KALABURAGI BENCH
                               DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
                                              BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                               CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200471 OF 2026
                                      (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))
                      BETWEEN:

                      SIDDU JCB
                      S/O MALLANNA BHAGALKOT
                      AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: JCB DRIVER,
                      R/O KADANI VILLAGE,
                      TQ: AND DIST: KALABURAGI
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. RAJESH DODDAMANI., ADVOCATE)
                      AND:

                      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                      FARTHABAD POLICE STATION
                      KALABURAGI DISTRICT
Digitally signed by   NOW REPRESENTED BY
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
                      THE ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Location: HIGH        HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             KALABURAGI BENCH 585105
                                                                  ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI.GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP)
                           THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C (OLD), 483 OF
                      BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND
                      ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/A-1 (AS PER CHARGE SHEET) ON
                      BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.148/2025 OF
                      FATHABAD POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI CITY REGISTERED
                      FOR THE OFFENCES 302, 201, 120(B), 114 R/W 149 OF
                      INDIAN PENAL CODE, NOW PENDING IN CC NO.827/2026 ON
                      THE FILE OF HONOURABLE 2ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
                      JMFC KALABURAGI.
                                 -2-
                                                 NC: 2026:KHC-K:3036
                                         CRL.P No. 200471 of 2026


HC-KAR



    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                         ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the

petitioner/accused No.1 for grant of bail in

C.C.No.287/2026 arising out of Crime No.148/2025,

registered by Farhatabad Police, for the offences

punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B), 114 r/w 149

IPC, presently pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge

and JMFC, Kalaburagi.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that, on the

basis of the complaint filed by one Sri.Pranesh, Farhatabad

Police have registered the case in Crime No.148/2025

against the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable

under Sections 302, 201, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC. During

the course of investigation, the police have arrested this

accused on 20.11.2025, produced before the Court and

remanded to judicial custody since then he is in judicial

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3036

HC-KAR

custody. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has

submitted the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 5

for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201,

120(B), 114 r/w 149 IPC. Being aggrieved by the same,

the petitioner filed bail petition in Criminal

Misc.No.241/2026 before the III Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, which was rejected by order

dated 06.03.2026. Hence, the petitioner preferred this

petition seeking for grant of regular bail.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned HCGP for respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a law abiding

citizen and is no way connected to the offences alleged

and there is no prima-facie case made out against the

petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely implicated at the

instance of his ill-wishers. Even as per the prosecution

version, the alleged incident happened in the year 2016

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3036

HC-KAR

and the complaint is lodged in the year 2025. This aspect

of the matter creates a serious doubt about the

prosecution version. In such circumstances, the possibility

of the petitioner being falsely implicated cannot be ruled

out. Upon perusal of the complaint, it becomes clear that

even as per the complainant the alleged video contains the

conversation between accused Nos.3 and 2 and accused

No.3 is said to have demanded the balance amount from

accused No.2. Even as per the complainant, there is no

mention of the petitioner in the alleged video conversation

between accused Nos.2 and 3. Except, the voluntary

statement of petitioner and other co-accused persons,

there is no independent material to implicate the petitioner

in the present case. As per the complainant, the motive for

commission of the alleged offence is that the petitioner

and accused No.2 had illicit relationship and the same was

objected by the deceased. If at all the complainant had the

knowledge about the illicit relationship, he ought to have

filed the complaint in the year 2016 itself against the

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3036

HC-KAR

petitioner and accused No.2, the same is not done and the

complaint is lodged in the year 2025. The delay of 9 years

in lodging the said complaint is not at all explained. The

police have not communicated the grounds of arrest to the

petitioner or his relatives. Hence, the right of the

petitioner as envisaged under Article 22(1) of the

Constitution of India is violated and the same is against

the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR

2025 SC 1388. The presence of the petitioner is not

required for further investigation since the investigation is

complete and charge sheet is filed and the petitioner is

ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be

imposed by this Court. On all these grounds, he prays to

allow the bail petition.

5. Per contra, the learned HCGP for respondent -

State opposed to the bail petition.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3036

HC-KAR

6. I have examined the materials placed before

this Court.

7. On perusal of the materials placed before this

Court, it is clear that the alleged incident took place on

01.06.2016 to 03.04.2016. The complaint came to be filed

on 17.11.2025. The accused is not required for further

investigation and there is no direct evidence to connect

this accused. The entire case is based on circumstantial

evidence. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on

the merits of the case, considering the delay of more than

9 years in filing the complaint and non-requirement of the

accused for further investigation, it is just and proper to

enlarge the petitioner on bail by imposing several

conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioner/accused No.1 is directed to be

enlarged on bail in C.C.No.287/2026 arising out of

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3036

HC-KAR

Crime No.148/2025, registered by Farhatabad Police,

for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201,

120(B), 114 r/w 149 IPC, presently pending on the file

of II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, subject to

the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;

(b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the concerned Court;

(c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

(d) The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences in future;

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT-BH