[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Revanasiddayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3141
CRL.P No. 200410 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200410 OF 2026
(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. REVANASIDDAYYA
S/O KUPENDRAYYA
AGE: 37 YEARS
OCC: DRIVER AUTO RICKSHAW
R/O SINDAGI VILLAGE
KALABURGI-586128
2. SIDRAMMAYYA
S/O KUPENDRAYYA MATH
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SINDAGI VILLAGE
KALABURGI-586128
Digitally signed by
RAMESH 3. MADEPPA @ MALENDRA
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH S/O SHRISHAILA MATHA
COURT OF AGE: 25 YEARS
KARNATAKA
OCC :VEGITABLE BUSINESS
R/O BIDDAPURA COLONY
KALABURGI-586128
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANWAR BASHA B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(THROUGH SUB URBAN POLICE STATION
KALABURGI) REPRESENTED BY
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3141
CRL.P No. 200410 of 2026
HC-KAR
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURGI-585107
...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/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 ON BAIL IN
SC NO.24/2024 IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.189/2023
REGISTERED IN SUB URBAN POLICE STATION FOR THE
OFFENCES U/S 302, 307, 323, 324, 326, 448, 504, 506 R/W
SEC. 34 OF IPC, PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE BEFORE THE Vth
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE KALABURAGI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section
439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in S.C.No.24/2024 in
connection with Crime No.189/2023 registered by Sub-
Urban police station for the offences punishable under
Sections 506, 34, 504, 448, 302, 307, 323, 324, 326 of
IPC, pending on the file of V-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,
Kalaburagi.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3141
HC-KAR
2. Prior to filing this petition, the petitioners have
filed the petition before this Court in
Crl.P.No.201564/2025. The same came to be rejected on
30.10.2025. Now the petitioners have filed this petition on
the ground that all the prosecution witnesses are already
recorded. The petitioners are in judicial custody since
three years and they have no criminal antecedents that
there are no chances of tampering the prosecution
witnesses. On all these grounds, prays to allow this
petition.
3. To substantiate the same, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vinay Rajashekhrappa Kulkarni vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.2539/2026].
4. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3141
HC-KAR
5. This Court in Crl.P.No.201564/2025 dated
30.10.2025 has observed in paragraph Nos.7 to 9 as
under:
"7. The contention of the petitioners that
all the eyewitnesses are close relatives of the
deceased and, therefore, their testimonies
cannot be relied upon, cannot be accepted at
this preliminary stage. When there are injured
eyewitnesses whose statements have been
recorded during the course of investigation, their
presence at the scene of offence cannot be
disputed. At this juncture, the Court is not
expected to undertake a detailed appreciation of
such evidence. Having regard to the nature of
allegations, the materials collected during
investigation, and the role attributed to each
accused, particularly to accused No.1, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the petitioners
are not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.
It is also pertinent to note that the bail petition
of accused No.2 has already been rejected by
this Court, and the allegations against accused
No.1 are of an even more aggravated nature.
Hence, the present petition filed on behalf of
accused No.1 also deserves to be rejected.
8. The contention of the petitioners that
the trial is likely to take considerable time and
that their continued detention would infringe
their fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is also devoid of merit. The
right to personal liberty is, no doubt, sacrosanct;
however, it is not absolute and must be balanced
against the gravity of the offence and the
societal interest in ensuring a fair trial. In the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3141
HC-KAR
present case, having regard to the heinous
nature of the crime, the specific allegations
supported by injured witnesses, and the
seriousness of the charge under which the
petitioners are prosecuted, the plea of prolonged
incarceration cannot, by itself, be a ground to
enlarge them on bail at this stage.
9. For the foregoing reasons and in light
of the materials available on record, this Court
finds no justifiable grounds to interfere. The
petition being devoid of merits, stands
dismissed."
6. In the case on hand, the materials witnesses
have supported to the case of the prosecution. Now the
case is posted for recording the statement under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. The alleged commission of offence under
Section 302 of IPC is punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. This Court has already expressed its
opinion in Crl.P.No.201564/2025 that plea of prolonged
incarceration cannot, by itself, be a ground to enlarge
them on bail, even after recording of material witnesses.
At this stage, it is not just and proper to release the
accused on bail on the basis of the decision relied on by
the learned counsel for the petitioners.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3141
HC-KAR
7. Considering the nature and gravity of the
offences, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
SDU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 17
CT-BH
