GULESHWAR vs THE STATE THROUGH
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11301
CRL.P No. 201218 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030097902026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201218 OF 2026
(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
GULESHWAR
S/O SHANKERLING TALWAR,
AGE : 36 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VILLAGE HANGANALLI,
TQ : SEDAM,
DIST : KALABURAGI 585 222.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI NANDKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE THROUGH,
SEDAM PS,
NOW REPRESENTING BY ADDL SPP,
HCKB, AT KALABURAGI.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C
Digitally signed
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(OLD), UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED ON BAIL, IN CRIME
NO.05/2026 OF MALKHED POLICE STATION, SEDAM FOR THE
OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 103 AND 352 OF BNS, 2023,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11301
CRL.P No. 201218 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030097902026
PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONOURABLE IV ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI, SITTING AT SEDAM
IN S.C.NO.123/2026, IN VIEW OF THE REASONS AS STATED
ABOVE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor (for short
‘Addl. SPP) for the respondent/ State on the petition.
Perused the relevant materials on record.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/ sole
accused under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’), praying to
grant bail in his favour in the case in SC No.123/2026
pending on the file of learned IV Additional District and
Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi, Sitting at Sedam arising
out of Crime No.5/2026 of the respondent Police for the
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11301
CRL.P No. 201218 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030097902026
offences punishable under Sections 103 and 352 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’).
3. The learned Addl. SPP has orally objected to
the petition submitting that the investigation is already
completed and the charge sheet is filed against the
petitioner. There are sufficient materials against the
petitioner for the offence under Section 103(1) of BNS,
which is heinous offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. There is motive on the part of the
petitioner for the alleged offence. Considering the
allegations made against the petitioner, it would be clear
that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is chance
of him tampering with prosecution witnesses and
hampering trial of the case. Therefore, the learned Addl.
SPP has sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. The prosecution was set into motion against
the petitioner on the complaint of one Sudharani, the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11301
CRL.P No. 201218 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030097902026
wife of the deceased. The case alleged against the
petitioner is that the deceased and the petitioner are
cousins, as their fathers are siblings. The father of the
deceased intended to sell his two acres of land to clear
the marriage debts incurred and the father of petitioner
intended to purchase the same and asked him to wait
for two years. But the father of the deceased had sold
the said land to one Devu. Due to the sale of the land to
others, there arose enmity among them and there were
constant quarrels with the husband of complainant.
Thereafter, when Tippanna, another younger brother of
father-in-law of the complainant also incurred debt and
decided to sell his two acres of land. At that time, the
petitioner forced Tippanna to sell the land to him at low
price, to which said Tippanna refused and decided to
sell the land again to Devu S/o Bheema Nayaka and he
took an advance amount of Rs.1,000/- from Devu, but
he did not sell the land. Hence, there was enemity
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11301
CRL.P No. 201218 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030097902026
between the petitioner and the deceased regarding the
sale of the property and the quarrel took place in March
2025, as the petitioner had assaulted Tippanna, which
was opposed by the deceased and the case was filed at
Malkhed police station.
5. When the matter stood thus, on 30.01.2026
when the deceased went out of the house at about 10.30
p.m. on that night i.e., on 31.01.2026 at around 01.00
a.m. in the night, Tippanna came to the house of the
complainant and informed her that her husband was
stabbed by the petitioner with a knife on his stomach
causing bleeding injuries and that he was taken to
Sedam Hospital for treatment. Immediately, the
complainant went to the hospital, wherein one
Vishwanath, who was eye witness to the incident, told
her about the alleged incident that on 31.01.2026 at
about 11.15 p.m., when he and the deceased were
sitting and talking near the shop of Sabanna Hadapad.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11301
CRL.P No. 201218 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030097902026
At that time, the petitioner was sitting in front of his
hotel and he started abusing the deceased. When the
deceased asked the petitioner as to why he was abusing,
there arose a quarrel between the petitioner and the
deceased and the petitioner assaulted the deceased on
his chest with a knife. When the deceased ran away
from the spot into the lane of shop, the petitioner
chased him and again stabbed him on his stomach and
left the place. Immediately, the deceased was taken to
hospital wherein he was succumbed to injuries
sustained by him. Thereafter, the complainant lodged
complaint before the respondent Police, who registered
the case and after the completion of investigation filed
charge sheet against the petitioner. Hence, the
petitioner has committed the alleged offences.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the
offences alleged against him and he has not committed
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11301
CRL.P No. 201218 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030097902026
any offence as alleged and the petitioner is falsely
implicated in the case. In support of such contention,
the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn
attention of this Court to the statement of eye witness
given before the learned Magistrate under Section 183(5)
of BNS, wherein there is no element to show that they
saw the petitioner stabbing the deceased with knife in
the alleged incident.
7. It is true that there are discrepancies in the
statement of the eye witness given before the learned
Magistrate. However, such discrepancies are matter of
evidence and the same is to be considered during trial of
the case on merit.
8. It is undisputed fact that the enmity between
the petitioner and the deceased is regarding the sale of
the property belonging to the father of the deceased. The
father of the deceased had sold the land to others
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11301
CRL.P No. 201218 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030097902026
instead of selling the same to the father of the
petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve at this stage
the contents of the complaint and the statement of the
concerned witness given before the respondent Police
regarding the investigation.
9. Moreover, as pointed out by the learned Addl.
SPP, the Post Mortem report of the deceased would
show the opinion regarding his death that death of the
deceased was caused due to hemorrhagic shock as a
result of multiple stab injuries sustained. The post
mortem report would also show that there were external
injuries sustained by the deceased and particularly on
the vital part of the deceased i.e., stomach. Therefore,
at this stage, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of
the prosecution that the petitioner stabbed the deceased
on the vital part of body and caused his death.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11301
CRL.P No. 201218 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030097902026
10. As submitted by learned Addl. SPP, the
alleged offence is punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. Moreover, the deceased is cousin
of the petitioner. Therefore, if the petitioner is released
on bail, there is every chance of the petitioner tampering
with prosecution witnesses and hampering trial of the
case. Mere fact that the investigation is already over
and the charge sheet is filed against the petitioner
cannot be a ground to release the petitioner on bail. On
the other hand, the contents of the charge sheet would
clearly go to show that there is prima facie case against
the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section
103(1) of BNS.
11. It is true that bail is a rule and jail is an
exception and the accused cannot be allowed to be
remain in judicial custody during pretrial stage as
punishment for the alleged offence. However, it is
pertinent to mention that every case should be
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11301
CRL.P No. 201218 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030097902026
considered on the basis of the facts of each case. In the
case on hand, considering the fact of the alleged enmity
between the petitioner and the deceased and that they
are cousins and also as per the complaint averments
regarding the alleged incident, there is no special
ground made out by the petitioner to grant bail in his
favour at this stage.
12. It is true that the petitioner has produced
copies of Aadhar card, medical certificate and lab
reports and also Certificate of the son of petitioner
issued by the competent Authority, which would show
that the son of petitioner is physically handicapped
having mental disability and now he is aged about 14
years. There is also document produced by the
petitioner to show that the daughter of the petitioner is
aged about 11 years and she is suffering from illness.
But the discharge summary issued in respect of the
daughter of petitioner would show that she took
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11301
CRL.P No. 201218 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030097902026
treatment as inpatient for the period from 25.10.2025
till 14.11.2025 with the history of allergic reaction to IV
Antibioticsat at the age of 2 years contracture band over
B/L glueteal region and she has been diagnosed on B/L
Gluteal region contracture. Hence, those documents
are regarding the treatment of the daughter of the
petitioner taken about one year earlier to the alleged
incident.
13. As submitted by learned Addl. SPP, it is not in
dispute that the petitioner is having wife to take care of
his children. On the other hand, as per the complaint
averments, the deceased is having two small children
aged about 6 years and 4 years and they have lost their
father in the alleged incident. Therefore, mere fact that
the son of the petitioner is suffering from physical
disability and his minor daughter is suffering from any
ill-health cannot be a ground to grant bail to the
petitioner at this stage.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11301
CRL.P No. 201218 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030097902026
14. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the eyewitnesses are planted witnesses
and they did not speak about stabbing the deceased
with knife by the petitioner at the time of incident and
there are discrepancies in the statements of the
witnesses regarding the alleged incident. But any such
discrepancies cannot be ground to grant bail to the
petitioner as sought for.
15. Further, considering the material on record, it
is not desirable to grant bail to the petitioner at least till
the examination of complainant and material witnesses
in the case before the trial Court. Consequently, at this
stage, the petitioner has failed to make out any ground
to grant bail in his favour and accordingly, the petition
is liable to be dismissed.
16. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11301
CRL.P No. 201218 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030097902026
ORDER
i) The petition is hereby dismissed.
ii) However, the petitioner is at liberty
to move the trial Court for bail after
examination of the complainant and
material witnesses, if so advised.
Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE
MBB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9