SHARANAPPA S/O BHEEMAPPA JUDI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17644
CRL.P No. 100431 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020039352026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100431 OF 2026
(439(2)(CR.PC)/483(3)(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. SHARANAPPA BHEEMAPPA JUDI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O. BHIMAPPA JUDI
ND
NO.16/1, 2 WARD,
NEAR VEERABASAVESHWARA TEMPLE
HANWAL, GANGAVATHI-KOPPAL
KARNATAKA-583268.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANOJ J. RAIKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GANGAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION,
GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583227,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. SHIVAKUMAR S/O VEERESHAPPA CHADIHAL
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: FARMER,
R/O. NEAR SINGANAL ROAD,
HANAWAL VILLAGE,
TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL-583268.
3. AMBARESHA S/O. AGALURAPPA KURI
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
HANAWAL VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583268.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17644
CRL.P No. 100431 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020039352026
4. MANJUNATHA S/O. VEERESHAPPA CHADIHAL
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: FARMER,
R/O. NEAR SINGANAL ROAD,
HANAWAL VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583268.
5. MAHESHWARI @ LAKSHMI
W/O. SHIVAKUMAR CHADIHAL,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NEAR SINGANAL ROAD,
HANAWAL VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI
DIST: KOPPAL-583268.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI HIRANKUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI GOURISHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE FOR R2,R4 AND R5,
SRI SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 483 (3) OF BNSS,
2023, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2025
PASSED IN S.C. NO.18/2025 BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL (SITTING AT
GANGAVATHI), ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.137/2025 OF
GANGAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/SEC. 103(1), 238, 238(A), 3(5) OF THE BNS, 2023 WHEREBY
ACCUSED NO.2 (RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN) HAVE BEEN ENLARGED
ON BAIL UNDER SECTION 483 BNSS (ANNEXURE - A) AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2025 PASSED IN S.C. NO.18/2025
BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
KOPPAL (SITTING AT GANGAVATHI), ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.137/2025 OF GANGAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 103(1), 238, 238(A), 3(5) OF THE
BNS, 2023 WHEREBY ACCUSED NO.1, 3 AND 4 (RESPONDENT NO.2,
4 AND 5 HEREIN) HAVE BEEN ENLARGED ON BAIL UNDER SECTION
483 BNSS (ANNEXURE - B) AND CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO
ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4- RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 IN S.C.
NO.18/2025 AND DIRECT THAT THEY BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY IN
CRIME NO.137/2025 OF GANGAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17644
CRL.P No. 100431 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020039352026
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Manoj J. Raikar, learned counsel for the
petitioner/complainant, Sri.Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for the
respondent No.1-State, learned counsel Sri.Subhash J.Baddi for
respondent No.3 and learned counsel Sri.G.S.Mot for
respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5.
2. The petitioner/complainant has filed this petition
under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 (Section 439(2) of
Cr.P.C.) seeking to set aside the order dated 30.09.2025
passed in S.C.No.18/2025 by the learned I Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Koppal, sitting at Gangavathi in connection
with crime No.137/2025 of Gangavathi Rural Police Station,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1),
238, 238(a), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
wherein accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have been enlarged on bail,
and also cancel the bail granted in favour of accused Nos.1 to 4
in S.C.No.18/2025.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell
are as under:
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17644
CRL.P No. 100431 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020039352026
On 28.04.2024, the defacto complainant lodged the
complaint to the respondent police alleging that on 28.04.2025
at 11.00 p.m., the deceased Suresh went near the house of
accused No.1 on his motorcycle, and was talking to accused
No.4. At that time, accused No.3 saw the deceased and
informed the said aspect to accused Nos.1 and 2. Immediately,
accused Nos.1 to 3 came near the house of accused No.1,
caught hold the deceased, tied his legs and hands with rope,
closed his mouth with towel, assaulted on his head and other
parts of the body with a wooden club and thereby committed
the murder. Thereafter, they shifted the dead body in accused
No.1's car bearing Reg.No.KA-36/M-9437 and thrown into
Tungapatra underground tunnel situated at Devalapura-
Kerekoppa Main Road and accused No.3 took the motorcycle of
the deceased and disposed it into Dharoji Lake of Sanduor
Taluk. Hence, FIR was registered and the Investigating Officer
took up the investigation and filed the charge sheet.
4. In turn, the accused persons filed bail petition
before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Koppal, sitting at Gangavathi in S.C.No.18/2025, and the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17644
CRL.P No. 100431 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020039352026
learned Sessions Judge has granted bail in favour of accused
No. 1 to 4 with certain conditions.
5. Now, the complainant being aggrieved by the grant
of bail to accused Nos.1 to 4 has filed this petition for
cancellation of bail.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the case pertains to a heinous offence of murder and these
accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased.
The learned Session Judge failed to note that soon after release
of the accused persons, they are threatening the prosecution
witnesses. Further, the learned Session Judge erroneously held
that, except the statement of C.Ws.22 and 26, there are no
other strong circumstances to show the involvement of the
accused persons and that the prosecution has to establish the
chain of circumstances so as to show the link of these accused
persons with the crime. He further contended that the learned
Sessions Judge failed to note that on the basis of the voluntary
statement of the accused persons, the respondent-police were
able to recover the dead body and motorcycle of the deceased.
Further, the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17644
CRL.P No. 100431 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020039352026
postmortem report and FSL report, which corroborate the
prosecution evidence. Hence, on these grounds, learned
counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the petition and
cancel the bail granted in favour of accused Nos.1 to 4.
Per contra
7. , learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State
and learned counsels for respondent Nos.2 to 5 have opposed
the petition.
8. I have carefully perused the material available on
record and considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties.
9. The petitioner/complainant has filed this petition for
cancellation of bail on the ground of non-consideration of the
material facts, such as, the alleged offence is heinous in nature
and the accused persons are threatening the prosecution
witnesses and the trial Court has not considered the material
aspects i.e., postmortem examination and FSL reports.
10. Admittedly, the prosecution case rests on the
circumstantial evidence. The prosecution must establish the
chain of circumstances so as to establish all the links. Insofar
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17644
CRL.P No. 100431 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020039352026
as recovery is concerned, the dead body and motorcycle of the
deceased were recovered at the instance of the accused
persons. The same has to be established during the course of
the trial, in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
11. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the accused persons are threatening the
prosecution witnesses. Admittedly, no complaint is lodged by
the complainant against the accused persons regarding alleged
threat made by them. Further, the Investigating Officer has not
submitted any report that accused persons have jumped the
bail conditions. Insofar as consideration of postmortem and FSL
reports are concerned, it has to be proved during the course of
the trial. While considering bail petition, the court has to see
the prima facie case and at this stage, this court cannot hold a
mini trial. Since the accused persons have not violated any bail
conditions and since the prosecution case rests on
circumstantial evidence, the trial court has analyzed the entire
facts of the prosecution case, circumstances on which it is
relied upon and the trial court also considered the gravity and
nature of the offence, and disposed of the bail petition, in
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17644
CRL.P No. 100431 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020039352026
accordance with law. Hence, no interference is called for. The
petitioner has not made out any grounds to cancel the bail
granted in favour of accused Nos.1 to 4.
12. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the
following :
ORDER
The petition filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023
dismissed
(Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.) is hereby .
The observations made herein are only for the purpose of
disposal of this criminal petition.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MBS
CT:GSM
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8