[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Raghavendra S/O Basavaraj Patath vs State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4725
CRL.P No. 104926 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.104926 OF 2025
(439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAGHAVENDRA S/O. BASAVARAJ PATATH,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR,
R/O. NEAR BEERALINGESWHAR TEMPLE,
KOTUTU VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. DHARWAD-580001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI LESLEE SAMUEL SULLAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH GARAG P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY HCGP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: High
...RESPONDENT
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench (BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.483 OF BNSS,
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE ABOVE SAID PETITIONER/ACCUSED
NO. 1 ON REGULAR BAIL IN S.C.NO.53/2023 IN GARAG P.S.
CRIME NO. 72/2023, U/S.143, 147, 148, 302, 120(B), 109, 504,
R/W. 149 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSION JUDGE DHARWAD, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4725
CRL.P No. 104926 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
HCGP for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
seeking regular bail and praying for the following relief:
A) Therefore it is most humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may pleased to enlarge the above
said petitioner/Accused No.1 on regular bail in SC
No.53/2023 in Garag PS Crime No.72/2023, U/S
143, 147, 148, 302, 120(B), 109, 504 R/w 149
IPC, on the file of IV Addl District and Sessions
Judge Dharwad, in the interest of justice and
equity.
B) Any other which the court may deems fit and
proper in the light of the facts, circumstances of
the case, may also be passed in favour of the
petitioner".
3. The brief case of the prosecution is that, as per
the complaint, FIR, and charge sheet material, enmity
developed between the deceased and accused No. 1 with
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4725
HC-KAR
regard to obtaining a contract in the Gram Panchayat.
Therefore, all the accused shared a common intention to
eliminate the deceased. Accordingly, on 18.04.2023, they
committed the offence and murdered the deceased. Hence,
a crime has been registered for the above-stated offences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the charge sheet has been filed, the trial has commenced,
and all material witnesses have been examined. It is further
submitted that the eyewitnesses have turned hostile, and
therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned HCGP submitted
that material witness CW-1, who is the wife of the
deceased, has been examined as PW-3, and one of the
eyewitnesses, CW-17, has been examined as PW-9; both
have supported the prosecution case. Therefore, if at this
stage the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is a likelihood
of threatening witnesses, tampering with prosecution
evidence, and absconding. Hence, prays to dismiss the
petition.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4725
HC-KAR
6. As per the charge sheet material, the overt act
alleged against the petitioner is that he used a knife and
assaulted the deceased on the nose, head, left shoulder,
and chest, causing lacerated wounds and profuse bleeding,
resulting in death at the hospital. Though the
petitioner/accused No. 1 is in custody, considering the overt
act alleged, the nature of the weapon used, and the injuries
inflicted on vital parts of the body, it prima facie reveals the
intention to commit murder.
7. As per the prosecution case, the motive arose
due to enmity between the deceased and accused No. 1
with regard to obtaining a contract in the Gram Panchayat.
Further, the wife of the deceased, examined as PW-3, has
supported the prosecution case. Whatever defects are
pointed out in the cross-examination by the learned counsel
for the petitioner will be considered during the appreciation
of evidence and not at this stage. Additionally, one of the
eyewitnesses to the incident, examined as PW-9, has also
supported the prosecution case.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4725
HC-KAR
8. Therefore, even if there are certain discrepancies
in the cross-examination, they cannot be appreciated at this
stage while considering the bail application. Considering the
overt act alleged against the petitioner and the fact that
PWs 3 and 9 have supported the prosecution case, this
Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is released on
bail at this stage, there is a likelihood of threatening
witnesses, tampering with evidence, and absconding. In
such an event, the entire trial become dwindles.
9. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner/accused No. 1 is not entitled to be enlarged on
bail at this stage. The petition is liable to be dismissed, and
accordingly, it is dismissed.
10. However, the Sessions Court is directed to
expedite the trial by following the principles of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Akil @
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4725
HC-KAR
Javed vs. State of NCT of Delhi1 and State of U.P. vs.
Shambhu Nath Singh and Others2.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
ASN /CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
2013 (7) SCC 125
2001 (4) SCC 667
