[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Praveen S/O Narayan Talawar Alias Madar vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1380
CRL.P No. 100012 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100012 OF 2026
(438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. PRAVEEN S/O NARAYAN TALAWAR @ MADAR
AGE. 40 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O SOPPADLA, TQ. YARAGATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI 591129.
2. SANJAY S/O NARAYAN TALAWAR @ MADAR
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O SOPPADLA TQ YARAGATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI 591129.
3. NARAYAN S/O DUNDAPPA TALAWAR
AGE. 60 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O SOPPADLA TQ YARAGATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI 591129.
4. YALLAVVA S/O NARYAN TALAWAR
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
CHANDRASHEKAR
R/O SOPPADLA TQ. YARAGATTI,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
DIST. BELAGAVI 591129.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. PRIYANKA PAWAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. INGALE ADIVEPPA
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)
KATTIMANI
Date: 2026.02.03
15:09:42 +0530 AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THE SHO MURGOD POLICE STATION,
R/O MURGOD TQ YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
REPRESENTED BY HCGP THE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1380
CRL.P No. 100012 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
BNSS (U/S 438 OF CR.P.C.), PRAYING TO ALLOW AND THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1, 2, 4 AND 5 MAY BE ENLARGED ON
ANTICIPATORY BAIL EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN MURGOD P.S. CRIME
NO 313/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 137(2), 133, 308(8),
352, 351(2), R/W 190 OF BNS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Smt.Priyanka Pawar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Sri.Ingale Adiveppa Kallappa, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent/State.
2. Petitioners are accused persons in Crime
No.313/2025 of Murgod Police Station. They have approached
this Court with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail under
Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the petition are as under:
3.1. In respect of financial transaction, accused No.1 used
to blackmail the complainant and when he failed to heed to the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1380
HC-KAR
illegal demand on 06.10.2025, he filed a police complaint against
the complainant herein. Thereafter, complainant had been
followed by the accused persons and they used to abuse him
repeatedly.
3.2. When the matter stood thus, when complainant was
near Ratna Sangama Hotel, accused Nos.1 to 3 came in a car
bearing No.KA-25/MC-0163 and intercepted free movement of
the complainant by holding his shirt collar and abused him and
assaulted him.
3.3. Accused Nos.1 and 3 assaulted him with the iron rod
and squeezed his private part and thereafter, he was tied to an
electric pole. It is at that juncture, accused Nos.4 and 5 came
there and assaulted the complainant with chappal and stick.
3.4. When the mother of the complainant arrived and
requested him to release, all the accused persons demanded
Rs.5,00,000/- otherwise, complainant would be killed by putting
him on fire by pouring the petrol.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1380
HC-KAR
3.5. Incident was reported to the Police Sub-Inspector of
Murgod Police Station and he came there and rescued the
complainant and shifted him to the hospital.
3.6. When he was taking treatment in a Yaragatti
Hospital, accused Nos.1 and 2 visited the hospital and tried to
take away the life of the complainant and therefore, complainant
went to 'S4' hospital and he was taking treatment.
3.7. Complaint came to be registered when he was taking
treatment in 'S4' hospital and thereafter, investigation is being
carried on.
3.8. Approach made by the petitioner to obtain an order
of grant of bail is turned out by the learned Trial Magistrate and
thereafter, petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the
grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that
petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them and
as retaliation to the case filed by the accused, a false complaint
has been filed and sought for grant of anticipatory bail.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1380
HC-KAR
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
for the respondent/State opposes the grant of bail by contending
that there are eye witnesses to the incident and in fact he was
tied to the electric pole for a period of two hours and was
mercilessly beaten by the accused persons which has been
witnessed by the villagers and there was threat to the villagers
that complainant should not be rescued.
6. He would further contend that it is only after the
Police Inspector arrived at the sport, complainant was rescued
from the clutches of the accused persons and therefore, the
custodial interrogation is utmost necessary and thus, sought for
dismissal of the petition.
7. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused
the material on record meticulously.
8. On perusal of the material on record, it is crystal
clear that there was a previous enmity between the complainant
and the accused party in view of the fact that accused party had
filed a case against the complainant under the provisions of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1380
HC-KAR
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
9. Thereafter, accused party was following the
complainant wherever he went and ultimately, he was objected
in a car and was assaulted and thereafter, tied to the electric
pole.
10. Eye witnesses have witnessed the incident and when
the villagers came to rescue, there was threat to them also.
Mother of the petitioner wanted to rescue the complainant and at
that juncture, there was a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- by the
accused party.
11. All these factors when viewed cumulatively, offences
alleged against the petitioners are grave enough and custodial
interrogation is necessary to annul the truth.
12. Taking note of the fact that the incident has occurred
in a broad day light and none of the villagers have come forward
to rescue the complainant under the threat of the accused
persons, this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie
accused/petitioners are not law abiding citizens and they are
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1380
HC-KAR
required to be apprehended by the police and thereafter, they
should be subjected to custodial interrogation to annul the truth.
13. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that
no grounds are made out for grant of anticipatory bail.
14. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
KAV,
CT:CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19
