[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Arjun vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1925
CRL.P No. 202120 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 202120 OF 2025
(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
ARJUN S/O DHAREPPA BIRADAR
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR
R/O KANAKANAL VILLAGE
TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586209
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LAGALI RAIMOHAN SURESH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SHIVALEELA THROUGH THE SHO/PSI.,
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
GANDHI CHOWK PS., VIJAYAPURA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI-585101
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C (OLD),
U/SEC. 483 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS BAIL
PETITION AND THEREBY ORDER THE RELEASE OF THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIMINAL CASSE NO.12002/2025
(ARISING OUT OF VIJAYAPURA GANDHI CHOWK PS. CRIME
NO.128/2025) PENDING BEFORE THE HONOURABLE I ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC-I, COURT, VIJAYAPURA FOR
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1925
CRL.P No. 202120 of 2025
HC-KAR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 109(1), 103, 118(2), 351(3),
352 OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, by
the petitioner/accused for grant of bail in Crime No.128/2025
dated 17.06.2025, registered by the Gandhi Chowk Police,
Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1),
103, 118(2), 351(3) and 352 of BNS, 2023, presently pending
on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC,
Vijayapura.
2. The factual matrix of the case is, the deceased in
this case i.e., Anita, wife of accused lodged a complaint before
respondent-Police on 17.06.2025 alleging that, she married the
petitioner/accused and out of the wedlock, they begotten four
children. She was working as a cook in Hallimani Hotel near
Babaleshwar Naka, Vijayapura. The accused/petitioner used to
visit the house of deceased occasionally and used to pick up a
quarrel with her by suspecting her fidelity. Things stood thus,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1925
HC-KAR
on 17.06.2025 at about 04:00 p.m., the accused came to the
house and picked up a quarrel with the deceased by suspecting
her chastity and stabbed her with a knife on her abdomen,
chest and left hand with an intention to commit her murder. By
hearing her hue and cry, CW.8 to CW.10 came to her house,
rescued her and thereafter, shifted her to Government Hospital,
Vijayapura for treatment.
3. Later, she filed the complaint before the
respondent-Police against the petitioner, which came to be
registered in Crime No.128/2025 for the aforesaid offences.
During the course of treatment, she succumbed to the injuries
on 28.06.2025 at about 06:05 p.m. Later, by obtaining
necessary permission from the Magistrate, the Investigation
Officer invoked Section 103 of BNS against the petitioner and
arrested him on 29.06.2025. Aggrieved by his custodial
detention, he filed a regular bail application before IV Additional
District and Sessions Judge at Vijayapura, in
Crl.Misc.No.1603/2025. The same was dismissed vide order
dated 28.11.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is
before this Court.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1925
HC-KAR
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
HGCP for the respondent-State.
5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is, on perusal of the complaint and charge sheet
materials, the incident occurred in a spur of moment, since the
accused was suspecting the fidelity of her wife and there was
no such intention on his part to do away the life of his
wife/deceased. As such, in a sudden quarrel, the alleged
incident caused and the said act not comes within the purview
of Section 103 of BNS. Further he submits that, the deceased
was succumbed to the injury after lapse of 11 days. In such
circumstances, he prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned HGCP opposed the bail petition
on the ground that there are five eye-witnesses to the incident
including two children of the deceased and
accused/petitioner. According to him, the accused used to
suspect the fidelity of his wife/deceased, as such, he committed
her murder. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1925
HC-KAR
7. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and documents available on record.
8. On perusal of the charge sheet averments, there
are five eye-witnesses to the incident, among them, CW.13 and
CW.14 are the minor children of the deceased and petitioner.
According to the prosecution, they were present at the time of
incident, apart from CW.8 to CW.10, who were the neighbors.
In such circumstance, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there
is very possibility of hampering or tampering the witnesses,
including his minor children. Moreover, the incident is
committed in the matrimonial home i.e., in the house of
accused, hence, there is a primary presumption against the
accused.
9. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the
petitioner is not entitled for regular bail. Accordingly, the
petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
THM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6/CT-BH
