DR. P M NAGARAJU S/O. LATE MAHADEVAPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18271
CRL.P No. 102383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020165522026
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.102383 OF 2026
(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
DR. P. M. NAGARAJU S/O. LATE MAHADEVAPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: SCIENTIFIC OFFICER,
ST
RFSL, BELAGAVI, R/O. AT NO.11, 1 FLOOR,
TH
7A CROSS, 13 BLOCK, NEAR ADYAN SCHOOL,
SHAKTHI NAGAR, MYSORE.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI M. R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH PSI, GHATAPRABHA POLICE,
GHATAPRABHA, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C.
(U/S.483 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO GRANT/ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.158/2026 REGISTERED BY THE GHATAPRABHA POLICE,
BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.103(1), 238(B) R/W
3(5) OF BNS-2023, (DUE TO TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE
REJECTION BAIL ORDER MENTIONED THE WRONG PROVISION AND
NAME OF RESPONDENT POLICE) PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOKAK, BELAGAVI, IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONER/A7 IS CONCERNED AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18271
CRL.P No. 102383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020165522026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Hiremathad Maheshiah Rudrayya, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jairam Sidde, learned HCGP
for the respondent – State.
2. The petitioner/accused No.7 has filed this petition
under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail in
connections with Crime No.158/2026 of Ghataprabha Police
Station, Belagavi, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 103(1), 238(B) R/W 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, pending on the file of learned I Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Gokak, Belagavi.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell are as
follows:
Accused No.1 is the wife of the deceased Sandeep
Kallagouda Manjargi. He was a retired Army personnel and was
addicted to alcohol. Taking undue advantage of the said
situation and with an intention to eliminate him in order to
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18271
CRL.P No. 102383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020165522026
claim the insurance amount, accused No.1 decided to murder
him. Accordingly, accused No.1 obtained a term insurance
policy in the name of the deceased, behind his back, by forging
his signature. Thereafter, she made him consume alcohol and,
with a view to ensuring his early death, took the help of
accused No.2, with whom she was allegedly having an extra-
marital affair. After making him consume alcohol, she allowed
him to drive the vehicle with the intention of ensuring that he
would die in an accident. However, the deceased met with an
accident while under the influence of alcohol and sustained
minor injuries. Therefore, by hatching to cause his death by
administering some poisonous substance, he was admitted to
J.G.Co.Hospital, where accused No.2 secured sleeping pills and
some poisonous substance and administered the same through
saline, cause his death. In this regard, postmortem
examination was conducted on the dead body of the deceased
Sandeep. In order to ascertain actual cause of his death,
Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination, collected the
viscera, the same was sent to FSL, where accused No.1 bribed
the RFSL Officer and managed to get the report stating that
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18271
CRL.P No. 102383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020165522026
firstly as on the date of the accident, the deceased was not
under the influence of alcohol, and secondly, no poisonous
substance found in the viscera. In this regard, accused No.2
approached the Police to act as an approver, allegedly given his
statement under Section 183 of BNSS before the Judicial
Magistrate. Thereafter, the police started investigation and they
came to know about the involvement of accused Nos.1 to 10.
4. During the course of investigation, the
petitioner/accused No.7 was arrested and he was remanded to
the judicial custody. Hence, the petitioner/accused No.7
preferred a bail petition before the learned XII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.8140/2026. The same came to be dismissed on 22.07.2026.
Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.7
vehemently contended that the petitioner is innocent and he
has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution
and he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended
that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the only
allegation against the petitioner is that he issued a
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18271
CRL.P No. 102383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020165522026
tampered/false report stating that, while conducting the
examination of the viscera collected from the dead body of the
deceased Sandeep, he did not find any alcohol or poisonous
substance. It is contended that now, the investigation is
completed, and the Investigating Officer has already filed a
charge-sheet against the accused persons, and there is no
necessity of the petitioner to continue in judicial custody. It is
contended that the petitioner is ready to abide by the
conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, learned counsel
for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
Per contra
6. , learned HCGP for respondent-State
contended the entire allegation against the petitioner is that he
issued a false report to the Investigating Officer and, as such,
there is prima facie material against him. It is contended that if
the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the
prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. Hence, learned
HCGP prayed to dismiss the bail petition.
7. On perusal of the material available on record, it
clearly demonstrates that the petitioner is seeking bail on the
ground that he is not involved in the case and that the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18271
CRL.P No. 102383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020165522026
allegation against him is only with regard to issuing a false
report to the Investigating Officer. However, it is alleged that,
after commission of the murder by the other accused persons,
the petitioner assisted in destroying the evidence relating to the
crime.
8. The allegation against the petitioner/accused No.7
is that, after commission of the murder, the Doctor, who
conducted the postmortem examination collected the viscera
articles. Hence, accused Nos.1 and 2 suspected that, if the
RFSL examination resulted in a report stating that poisonous
substances were found in the viscera articles of the deceased,
they would be implicated in the murder case for having
administered poison to him. Under such circumstances, accused
Nos.1 and 2 procured a tampered report with the assistance of
accused Nos.3 to 7, showing that no such substance was found
in the viscera articles of the deceased. In order to execute the
said plan, they devised an action plan to approach the officers,
who examined the viscera articles. Accordingly, accused Nos.1
and 2 contacted accused No.3, who, in turn, contacted accused
Nos.4 to 6, who contacted the present petitioner/accused No.7,
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18271
CRL.P No. 102383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020165522026
who examined the viscera articles of the deceased and
subsequently issued a report stating that no poisonous
substance was found therein. Therefore, accused No.1 allegedly
paid an amount to accused No.3, which was subsequently
shared between accused Nos.3 to 6.
9. Later, the Investigating Officer secured a report
from the State RFSL and, as per the said report, traces of
alcohol and poisonous substances were found in the viscera
articles. Considering the same, there appears to be prima facie
involvement of the petitioner/accused No.7 in issuing a
tampered/false RFSL report. It shows that the petitioner, being
a responsible Senior Scientific Officer of RFSL, Belagavi, issued
a false report to the Investigating Officer, which deviated the
nature and scope of the investigation. Hence, there are serious
allegations of grave offences against the petitioner. At this
juncture, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
dismissed
Accordingly, the criminal petition is .
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AM/-
CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9