[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Imtiyaz Patel vs State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2026
1 Crl.P No.200258 OF 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200258 OF 2026
(439(Cr.PC)/483 (BNSS))
BETWEEN:
IMTIYAZ PATEL
S/O MAHIBUB PATEL
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
OCC: MECHANIC
R/A WARD NO.34, RAHIM NAGAR
HORTI PLOT, VIJAYAPURA-586102
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. LAKSHMIKANTH G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GANDHI CHOWK P.S.
REPRESENTATED BY
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI KALABURAGI BENCH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KALABURAGI-585103.
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP;
SRI. S S MAMADAPUR ADV., FOR APPLICANT/COMPLAINANT)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC. 483 OF BNSS (NEW),
PRAYING TO RELEASE HIM ON REGULAR BAIL ON SC
NO.164/2025 (CRIME NO.142/2025 FO GANDHI CHOWK P.S.
VIJAYAURA) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S P/U/S 103, 351(3) R/W
3(5) OF BNS, 2023, WHICH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE
HONOURABLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND
2 Crl.P No.200258 OF 2026
SPECIAL JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA ON SUCH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 18.03.2026, COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER
1. The petitioner who is accused no.1 in SC No.164 of 2025,
has preferred this petition under Section 483 of BNSS-2023, for
grant of bail in Crime No.142/2025 of Gandhi Chowk Police
Station for the offences p/u/s 103, 351(3) r/w 3(5) of BNS,
2023, which is now pending before the II Additional District &
Sessions and Special Judtge, Vijayapura whereby the bail
petition in crl.misc.no.1624/2025 came to be dismissed on
09.12.2025.
2. The prosecution case arises out of a monetary dispute
between the deceased Faisal and accused No.1, Imtiyaz. On 9th
July 2025 at about 3:30 PM, Faisal, along with his relative Yasin
Inamdar, went to the garage of accused No.1 to demand
repayment. It is alleged that accused No.1, along with the
present petitioners, wrongfully restrained Faisal and assaulted
him using a knife (khanjar) and a baseball bat, resulting in his
death. A complaint was lodged, and Crime No.142 of 2025 was
registered for offences including murder. After investigation, a
3 Crl.P No.200258 OF 2026
charge-sheet was filed against all accused. The complainant is
cited as CW1, and CWs 12 to 20 are eye-witnesses. The
postmortem report states that the cause of death was
haemorrhage and shock due to sharp weapon injuries to vital
organs, and the injuries were antemortem in nature.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED/PETITIONER
3. Sri Shyam Sundar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Sri Lakshmikant G, Advocate for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and has been fixed in
the case falsely for the reasons best known to the complainant-
Police. Petitioner has got valid and tenable defence in the case,
and he can prove his innocence and the above case is just
intended to harass him. The petitioner has not committed any
offence, much less the offence alleged, and he is in no way
involved in any criminal act and yet the complainant-Police has
falsely implicated the petitioner.
4. It is submitted that from a reading of the complainant, it
is evident that the complainant-Police have falsely registered
the alleged offences against the petitioner only to harass him.
Upon perusal of the entire material, the basic ingredient to
constitute the alleged offence under Section 302 of IPC, is not
found.
4 Crl.P No.200258 OF 2026
5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that a perusal of the
entire charge-sheet material makes it clear that there is no
motive, intention or preparation to commit to the murder of the
deceased. The allegations in the charge-sheet, even if taken at
its face value, do not constitute the offence alleged against the
petitioner. It is submitted that the entire incident, as per
prosecution's own narrative, was initiated by the deceased and
his associates. It is an admitted fact that a group of at least
eight individuals came to the petitioner's place of business
armed with deadly weapons, seeking a confrontation after
having threatened the petitioner over the telephone. They
were the aggressors and the petitioner was merely defending
himself. That the action of the petitioner fall squarely within
the ambit of the 'right of private defence of person and
property' as provided under the law. The petitioner and the co-
accused were outnumbered and were fleeing for their lives from
an armed mob. When the deceased chased them, the
petitioner had reasonable and imminent apprehension of
grievous hurt or death, compelling him to act in self-defence.
There was absolutely no pre-meditation or intention on the part
of the petitioner to commit the alleged offence. The petitioner
was at his own service station when the aggressors arrived.
The fact that the petitioner and others were running away from
5 Crl.P No.200258 OF 2026
the scene clearly demonstrates their lack of intention to engage
in fight, let alone commit murder. On 10th July, 2025, the
investigating officer recorded the statements of CWs12 to 20
under section 180 of BNSS-2023, who are alleged to be the
eye-witnesses to the incident. However, the very same
investigating officer registered a separate FIR in Crime No.148
of 2025 against CW20, CW14, CW13, CW16, CW19 and CW15
for offence punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3),
109, 190 of BNS-2023 on 21st July 2025 for attempting to
commit murder of the petitioner. This inexplicable delay of
eleven days in registering the FIR against aggressors who were
supposedly present and whose statements were recorded on
10th July 2025, casts serious doubt on the credibility and
impartiality of the investigation and the veracity of the
statements of the so-called eye-witnesses.
6. It is further submitted that the petitioners assaulted the
deceased with khanjar, which was available with him, is highly
improbable and lacks credibility, especially considering the fact
that the petitioner was allegedly running to escape from the
armed mob. It is far more probable that the petitioner, in the
exercise office right to private defence, might have used a
weapon carried by deceased or his associates given that the
6 Crl.P No.200258 OF 2026
prosecution itself asserts that the deceased's party came to the
spot armed with deadly weapons with an intention to commit
murder of the petitioner. The failure of the respondent-Police
to recover any weapon from the spot that was allegedly carried
by the deceased or his party, further strengthens the inference
and weakens the prosecution narrative.
7. It is further submitted that the Court was not pleased to
grant bail to accused 2 and 3 in the present case in Criminal
Petition No.201927 of 2025 vide order dated 10th December
2025. There is no concept of negative parity in Bail
jurisprudence and that parity cannot be applied negatively and
it may only be applied positively for grant of bail to similarly
placed accused. The petitioner's case must be considered on its
own merits, independent of the outcome for co-accused.
8. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that there
are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has
been guilty of alleged offences, exclusively punishable death or
imprisonment for life. Petitioner is in custody since the date of
his arrest, that is 10th July 2025, and that he is not required for
further investigation in the said case and charge-sheet has
been filed on 04th September 2025. The further detention of the
petitioner in custody will amount to pre-trial punishment.
7 Crl.P No.200258 OF 2026
9. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that
petitioner is suffering from a severe and debilitating medical
condition involving the generative changes of the lumber spine
which poses a significant threat to his health and well-being.
The MRI report dated 13th March, 2025, clearly substantiates
the gravity of element. MRI report reveals multiple critical
findings, including disc desiccation multiple levels, diffuse disc
bulge, indenting the ventral, thecal sac and most alarmingly
mild neural foramina on the left side at L4-L5 level, which is
causing mild compression of the left exiting Nehru roots. This
nerve compression is a serious medical issue that can lead to
chronic debilitating pain, paraesthesia, and potential long-term
or permanent neurological deficit if not addressed with
specialised medical intervention. He would also submit that the
medical facilities available within the prison or inadequate and
equipped to manage or treat such a complex and progressive
spinal condition. The petitioner requires constant monitoring by
specialists such as orthopaedic, surgeon or surgeon, a regiment
of specialised physiotherapy and potentially advanced surgical
intervention. Denial of such essential medical care in custody,
violating petitioner's fundamental right to health under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. The continued detention of the
petitioner in his current medical state poses an imminent and
8 Crl.P No.200258 OF 2026
grave risk to his life and limb. The progressive nature of
degenerative, spinal disease, necessitates immediate and
specialised medical attention to prevent permanent disability.
The clinical correlation suggested in the report the urgency for
the petitioner to be evaluated by specialists to formulate a
comprehensive treatment plan, and possibility while he remains
incarcerated. The learned Council has also produced the MRI
Lumbosacral screening Report vide Annexure-E. Hence, he
sought for allowing the petition. To substantiate his
arguments, the learned Counsel would place reliance on the
following judgments:
1. SAYEED VAJEED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
2023(4) KCCR 3089; AND
2. MOHAMMED FISAL @ FAISAL v. THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA RENDERED IN CRIMINAL PETITION
NUMBER 4976 OF 2015, DECIDED ON 26TH
NOVEMBER 2015.
10. Before going to the contents of the chargesheet, let us
know what the bail concept is all about. The concept of bail
originated in medieval English Common Law as a mechanism to
balance the authority of the Crown with individual liberty. The
term is derived from the Old French "baillier" (to deliver), the
Mughal history has vivid mentions of bail, often
9 Crl.P No.200258 OF 2026
called Zamanat or Muchalka and Latin "bajulare" (to bear a
burden), reflecting the idea of releasing an accused person into
the custody of sureties who undertake to produce them before
the court. In early England, Sheriffs exercised the power to
release accused persons on pledges, but misuse of this power
led to reforms through instruments like the Magna Carta and
the Habeas Corpus Act, 1679, which safeguarded personal
liberty. Bail may be defined as the temporary release of an
accused person from custody, upon furnishing a bond or surety,
with the condition that they will appear before the court as
required. This principle has been incorporated into modern legal
systems, including India under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
11. There is no specific definition of the term "bail" in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, though offences are
classified as bailable and non-bailable. Section 2(a) of Cr.PC
defines bailable offence as one which is shown as bailable in
the First Schedule or made bailable by any other law for the
time being in force; while a non-bailable offence means any
other offence. While deciding bail applications, courts are not
required to undertake a detailed examination of evidence or
conduct a meticulous analysis of the merits of the case.
10 Crl.P No.200258 OF 2026
However, the court must be satisfied that a prima facie case
exists against the accused. The discretion to grant bail must be
exercised judiciously and not in a routine or mechanical
manner.
12. Further, it is essential that courts record reasons while
granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offences, to
demonstrate proper application of mind. The court must
consider several relevant factors, including: (i) the nature and
gravity of the accusation, the severity of punishment in case of
conviction, and the nature of supporting evidence; (ii) the
likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or
threatening witnesses or the complainant; and (iii) the prima
facie satisfaction of the court regarding the charge. Any bail
order passed without due consideration of these factors and
without recording reasons is liable to be set aside for non-
application of mind, as emphasized by judicial precedents.
13. Having this basic principle regarding bail concept in mind,
I have examined the materials placed before this court. The
prosecution case, as emerging from the complaint and the
charge-sheet is that, there existed a monetary transaction
between the complainant, son Faisal and accused number one
Imtiyaz. On 9th July 2025, at about 3:30 pm, the deceased
11 Crl.P No.200258 OF 2026
Faisal accompanied by his relative Yasin Inamdar, proceeded to
the garage of accused No.1 to demand repayment of the said
amount. It is in this background, the prosecution alleges that
petitioner /accused No.1 joined the other accused persons
wrongfully restrained Faisal, assaulted him with a knife and a
baseball bat and thereby caused his death.
14. Based on these allegations, a complaint came to be
lodged and a case in Crime No.142 of 2025 was registered for
the offences including murder and upon completion of
investigation, the investigating officer has fight the charge-
sheet against all accused, including the present petitioner.
Copy of the charge-sheet submitted against the present
accused reveals that CW1 is the complainant. CWs12 to 20 are
eye-witnesses to the incident. It is alleged by the prosecution
that accused No.1 has stabbed the deceased on his chest and
abdomen with khanjar and caused his death. Postmortem
report also reveals that the cause of death is due to
haemorrhage and shock secondary to sharp weapon injury to
the vital organs (heart and left lung). The report further stated
that injuries are antemortem in nature.
15. Upon examination of the charge-sheet papers,
particularly the statements of two eyewitnesses-CW12 and
12 Crl.P No.200258 OF 2026
CW13, it becomes evident that specific allegations have been
levelled against the accused.No.1 These eyewitnesses have
categorically stated that the accused No.1 with other accused
persons chased the deceased Faisal, apprehended him, and
held him tightly, thereby enabling accused No.1 to stab the
deceased with a knife, resulting in fatal injuries. At this
preliminary stage, such consistent and direct eyewitness
accounts cannot be disregarded. The contention of the
petitioners that no overt act is attributed to them is therefore
untenable. The act of restraining and immobilising the
deceased, which directly facilitated the fatal assault, constitutes
a substantial overt act attributable to the petitioners. Hence, at
this stage of consideration for bail, there exists a strong prima
facie material.
16. Further, on careful examination of the entire material and
record, at this stage, there are sufficient materials to proceed
against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code. The alleged offence is heinous in nature and is
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. At this stage, if
the accused is released on bail, there is every possibility of
tampering or threatening the prosecution witnesses and also
13 Crl.P No.200258 OF 2026
will affect the society at large. In the result, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
