DODDAHANUMANTA S/O RAMACHANDRA MODIKAR ALIAS MODIKYAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18270
CRL.P No. 104947 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020243852025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD



TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T


CRIMINAL PETITION NO.104947 OF 2025
(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)


BETWEEN:

DODDAHANUMANTHA
S/O. RAMACHANDRA MODIKAR @ MODIKYAR
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: PETTY BUSINESS,
R/O. JAIHANUMANANAGAR,
NEAR VIDYANAGAR,
HUBBALLI 581115.





… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. LESLEE SAMUEL SULLAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR,
RANEBENNUR RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY HCGP,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-581115.





Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD

… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE ABOVE SAID PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.
1 ON BAIL IN RANEBENNUR RURAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO.
73/2022, CC NO.1089/2022 ALLEGING UNDER SECTION 120(B),
396, 457 R/W 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT, HAVERI.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18270
CRL.P No. 104947 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020243852025


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri L.S.Sullad, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for the respondent/State.
2. The petitioner/accused No.1 has filed this petition

under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking to enlarge him on
regular bail in C.C.No.1089/2022 arising out of Crime
No.73/2022 of Ranebennur Rural Police Station
(S.C.No.111/2024 on the file of learned Second Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur),
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B,
396, 457 read with Section 149 of IPC.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell
are as under:
On 06.04.2022, the defacto complainant lodged the
complaint with the respondent-police alleging that on
05.04.2022 between 05:00 p.m. to 09:00 p.m. accused No.1 to
7 hatched criminal conspiracy to commit theft of sheep belong
to deceased Venkatesh Muttur. Accordingly, this petitioner and

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18270
CRL.P No. 104947 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020243852025


other accused persons entered the sheep farm of deceased
Venkatesh situated at Gangapur Village, Ranebennur, entered
the land bearing Sy.No.151 on 06.04.2022 in between 01:00
a.m. and 06:30 a.m., cut the electric fence, entered the sheep
farm, accused No.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 caught hold deceased
Venkatesh tied with ropes. The deceased Venkatesh raised hue
and cry, at that time, accused No.3 closed the mouth of
Venkatesh with a Lungi, and accused No.1 stabbed him with a
knife. Hence, the deceased Venkatesh died on the spot.
Thereafter, all the accused persons robbed 35 sheep and
loaded them into their Bolero vehicle bearing registration
No.KA-27-C-2384. Hence, the de facto complainant lodged the
complaint.
4. During the course of investigation, the petitioner
was arrested and in turn, remanded to judicial custody. After
completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed
the charge sheet against the accused. Hence, this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that the case of the prosecution rests upon
circumstantial evidence. It is contended that the petitioner is

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18270
CRL.P No. 104947 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020243852025


falsely implicated in the case, the alleged incident occurred on
06.04.2022, the petitioner/accused No.1 was arrested on
15.05.2022 and till date, the Trial Court has not proceeded with
the trial. It is contended that this Court, by order dated
29.08.2024 passed in Criminal Petition No.100112/2024,
directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the
same as early as possible, but not later than 30.12.2024.
However, the Trial Court has not proceeded with the trial.
Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to grant
bail.
6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel
for the petitioner relied upon the entire order sheet maintained
by the Trial Court in S.C.No.111/2024 and the judgments in the
case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another, in Criminal Appeal Nos.152/2020, (arising out of SLP
(Criminal) No.9207/2019) disposed of on 24.01.2020, and also
in the case of Kanha @ Kanhaiya Singh Vs The Stateof
Madhya Pradesh and Another in Criminal Appeal No. /2026
(@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.9810/2026).

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18270
CRL.P No. 104947 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020243852025


7. Per contra , the learned HCGP vehemently
contended that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence
and there is a prima facie allegation against him. It is
contended that he is a habitual offender and has committed in
all 13 cases. Out of the said 13 criminal cases, in 9 cases, the
Trial Courts have issued body warrants against the present
petitioner. It contended that if the petitioner is released on bail,
he may commit similar offences and may not be available for
trial. Hence, learned HCGP prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. Perused the material available on record.
9. The order passed by the Coordinate Bench in

Criminal Petition No.100112/2024 dated 29.08.2024, reads as
under;
“Heard Sri L.S.Sullad, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned High Court
Government Pleader.
2. At the outset, learned High Court Government
Pleader has furnished the list of pending criminal cases
against the petitioner.
3. As could be seen from the said list, petitioner is
a known criminal and even if bail is granted in this case,

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18270
CRL.P No. 104947 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020243852025


there is no possibility of petitioner being released from
prison, having regard to the other pending criminal
matters.
4. Taking note of the antecedents of the
petitioner, successive bail request of the petitioner
cannot be entertained.
5. However, having regard to the fact that crime is
of the year 2022, learned Trial Judge is directed to
expedite the trial and conclude the trial as early as
possible, but not later than 30th December 2024.
Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.”
10. On perusal of the above order, it shows that the
Coordinate Bench directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial
and conclude the same as early as possible, but not later than
30.12.2024. However, the records reveal that the said order
passed by the Coordinate Bench was not communicated to the
Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not
placed a copy of the said order to the Trial Court. The Trial
Court simply proceeded by issuing summons and notices to the
other accused persons and has spent considerable time in
securing their presence. Hence, it is necessary to direct the
Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18270
CRL.P No. 104947 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020243852025


as possible, but not later than 30.04.2027, without granting
unnecessary adjournments, by securing the presence of the
accused persons and witnesses.
11. Insofar as the allegations made against the present
petitioner are concerned, there is a allegation that he made
criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons to commit
robbery. Accordingly, the petitioner and the other accused
persons entered the Farm House of the deceased Venkatesh,
and the petitioner stabbed him with a knife, thereby committed
murder. The post-mortem examination report also reveals that
the cause of death was due to the stab injuries sustained by
the deceased.
12. The fact that the present petitioner is involved in 13
criminal cases, which shows that he is a habitual offender and
is also required in 9 other cases.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kanha @ Kanhaiya
Singh' s case ( supra ), at paragraphs 13 and 14, has held as
under:

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18270
CRL.P No. 104947 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020243852025


“13. We are of the view that Courts should refrain from
imposing the personal views or value judgment of the
Presiding Judge on morality or otherwise while
adjudicating a matter relating to bail, or even a criminal
trial of an accused.
14. Insofar the present case is concerned, we find that
appellant has already undergone more than one year of
incarceration. It would take some more time for the trial
to conclude. In such circumstances, we are of the view
that a case for bail is made out.”
14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar

Tewari Vs State of U.P. and Another' s case ( supra ), the
Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraph 7, has held as under:
“7. On considering the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties. Having regard to the
circumstances of this case, in our opinion, there has
been no wrong or improper exercise of discretion on the
part of the High Court in granting bail to the accused.
The factors outlined in the case of Mahipal (supra) for
testing the legality of an order granting bail are absent in
the order impugned. The materials available do not
justify arriving at the conclusion that the order impugned
suffers from non-application of mind or the reason for
granting bail is not borne out from a prima-facie view of
the evidence on record. The offence alleged no doubt is
grave and serious and there are several criminal cases

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18270
CRL.P No. 104947 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020243852025


pending against the accused. These factors by
themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for
bail. The High Court has exercised its discretion in
granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh upon
considering relevant materials. No ex-facie error in the
order has been shown by the appellant which would
establish exercise of such discretion to be improper. We
accordingly sustain the order of the High Court granting
bail. This appeal is dismissed”
15. Whereas, in the instant case, the present petitioner

is required in 9 other criminal cases, wherein the concerned
Trial Courts have issued body warrants against him. It is also
evident from the records that the directions issued by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court were not communicated to the
Trial Court and, therefore, the Trial Court has not proceeded
with the trial in terms of the said directions.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid
judgments, has reiterated that the discretion to grant bail is
required to be exercised judiciously, having regard to the facts
and circumstances of each case. No doubt, the mere pendency
of criminal cases against an accused or the seriousness of the
offence, by themselves, cannot be the sole grounds for

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18270
CRL.P No. 104947 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020243852025


rejection of bail. However, the Court is required to consider the
nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific overt act
attributed to the accused and the likelihood of his availability to
face the trial. In the present case, there is a specific allegation
against the petitioner that he stabbed the deceased with a
knife, resulting in his death. Further, his involvement in 13
criminal cases and the issuance of body warrants against him in
9 other cases are relevant circumstances which cannot be
overlooked. Though the trial has not proceeded within the time
stipulated by the Coordinate Bench, the records indicate that
the said directions were not communicated to the Trial Court.
Therefore, considering the overall circumstances of the case,
particularly the specific overt act attributed to the petitioner
and his criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner has not made out a case for grant of
regular bail. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is distinguishable on the facts and
circumstances of the present case.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18270
CRL.P No. 104947 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020243852025


17. In view of the same, it is just and necessary to
direct the Trial Court to dispose of the criminal case as
expeditiously as possible, but not later than 30.04.2027.
Hence, there are no merits in the petition. Accordingly,
the petition is dismissed .
Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the
Trial Court forthwith.

Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE

CLK-para 1 to 3
AM –para 4 to end
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8