IJAJAHMED S/O KHAJASAB BANKAPUR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18079
CRL.P No. 102381 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020166132026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102381 OF 2026
(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
IJAJAHMED S/O KHAJASAB BANKAPUR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: KSRTC DRIVER,
RESIDING AT: MANTUR ROAD,
SHEELA COLONY, TALUK: HUBBALLI,
DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580028.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI GOURISHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
HUBLI TOWN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 580 011.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1)
SRI. S.A.SONDUR, ADV. FOR DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.
483 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE ACCUSED
NO.1/PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN HUBLI TOWN POLICE
STATION CRIME NO.65/2020 IN SC NO.5005/2021 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF HON'BLE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT: HUBBALLI, FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 506, 120(B) READ
WITH 34 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18079
CRL.P No. 102381 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020166132026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under
section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Cr.P.C for
short)/483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(BNSS for short) seeking regular bail in SC No. 5005/2021 on
the file of learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Dharwad, Hubballi for the offences punishable under sections
302, 506, 120(B) read with 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell is as
under:-
One Sri Ganapathi Habib lodged a complaint on
25.11.2020 alleging that his sister by name Shobha was given
in marriage to Ramesh Madhusa Bhandage(deceased) and he
was doing agriculture. Said Ramesh was fighting legally against
some persons, who had constructed houses and factories in the
land at Gabbur area, Hubballi bearing CTS No.112/1 and he
caused disconnection of electricity supply to those houses and
factories. In this regard, the affected persons who had
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18079
CRL.P No. 102381 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020166132026
constructed houses and factories were having animosity against
Ramesh. When the de-facto complainant was returning back
after finishing his work from bank at Babjan Road, Hubballi
near pakshal shop, said Ramesh Madhusa Bhandage was
standing by parking his Honda Activa two wheeler. At that time,
one unknown person caught hold of deceased Ramesh and
assaulted him with a knife. Immediately, one Nagaraj Miskin
intervened to rescue deceased Ramesh Bhandage, he was
threatened by the unknown person by showing a knife and
Ramesh was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi, where he was
declared dead. Hence, the de-facto complainant lodged the
complaint. During the course of investigation, the petitioner
and others were arrested and in turn, they were remanded to
judicial custody. The matter was investigated by the IO and he
filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. The
petitioner/accused No.1 was arrested on 26.11.2020. In the
charge sheet, it is alleged that accused No.4 had sold
unauthorized plots to several persons, who in-turn constructed
houses and factories therein. Hence, deceased Ramesh had
filed various civil cases and he even filed a petition at Hubballi
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18079
CRL.P No. 102381 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020166132026
town police station and he disconnected the electric supply to
those houses and factories. Accordingly, accused No.4 and
accused No.2 collected about Rs.25.00 lakhs from the persons,
who had constructed houses and factories to resolve the
dispute between deceased Ramesh and the occupiers of the
plots by giving said money to deceased Ramesh. However,
deceased Ramesh was not ready to accept said amount and to
resolve the dispute. Therefore, accused No.2, 4 and others
hatched a criminal conspiracy to eliminate deceased Ramesh.
In furtherance of said criminal conspiracy, accused No.1
assaulted deceased Ramesh with a knife and thereby
committed his murder.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that the alleged eye witnesses to the incident and
other material witnesses have not supported the case of
prosecution. The petitioner is in custody since six years. In the
first information report, the name of the present petitioner was
not found and the deceased was a rowdy sheeter. In the
complaint, the scene of offence is shown as Babusa Galli,
Hubballi and in the MLC intimation, the scene of offence is
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18079
CRL.P No. 102381 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020166132026
shown at Durgadbail, Hubballi. Further, there is delay in
conducting the trial. There are no antecedents against the
petitioner and he is a employee of Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation. He is ready to abide by any conditions
to be imposed by this Court. On all these grounds, learned
counsel prayed to allow the petition.
4. Learned HCGP for respondent State and
Sri. S.A. Sondur, learned counsel for defacto complainant
vehemently contended that the offences alleged against the
petitioner is a heinous offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. The petitioner has committed the murder
of the deceased by stabbing him with a knife. The family
members and other prime witnesses have to be examined by
the prosecution and if the petitioner is released on bail, he may
tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. Hence,
they prayed to reject the petition.
5. The perusal of the material available on record clearly
demonstrate that the accusations levelled against the
petitioner/accused No.1 in the charge sheet is that accused
No.2 and 5 made criminal conspiracy to eliminate deceased
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18079
CRL.P No. 102381 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020166132026
Ramesh. Accordingly, accused No.1 was hired by other accused
persons. He committed murder of deceased Ramesh by
stabbing him with a knife on his abdomen and received
advance amount of Rs.80,000/- from other accused persons. At
the time of incident, accused No.2 and 5 were standing at a
distance and watching the incident. Therefore, considering the
individual overt-acts of other accused persons, this Court as
well as the trial court granted bail to accused Nos.2 to 6.
Insofar as the present petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned, it
is alleged that he assaulted the deceased with a knife. The post
mortem report examination also reveals that the cause of death
of deceased is due to stab injury sustained. Admittedly, there
are 152 eye witnesses and 31 witnesses have already been
examined.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that all the eye witnesses have turned hostile to the
case of prosecution except CW.1. On perusal of the entire
charge sheet material, the entire allegation is against accused
No.1.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18079
CRL.P No. 102381 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020166132026
7. The matter is pending since 2020. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of X v. State of Rajasthan and another
reported in 2024 INSC 909 at paragraph Nos.15 and 16 held
as under:-
15. "Over a period of time, we have noticed two
things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge
is framed and just before the victim is to be
examined by the prosecution before the trial court,
or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral
evidence of the victim is complete by looking into
some discrepancies here or there in the deposition
and thereby testing the credibility of the victim.
16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a
correct practice that the Courts below should adopt.
Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to
reach to its final conclusion which may either result
in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the
accused. The moment the High Court exercises its
discretion in favour of the accused and orders release
of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition
of the victim, it will have its own impact on the
pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral
evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the
trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on
the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in
ordering his release on bail on the ground that right
of the accused to have a speedy trial has been
infringed."
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present
case and the ratio laid down in the decision cited supra at
paragraphs 15 and 16, admittedly, in the case on hand, the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18079
CRL.P No. 102381 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020166132026
family members of deceased and material witnesses have to be
examined. The examination of PW.1 discloses that he has
supported the case of the prosecution. Since the other material
witnesses have to be examined, it is not just and proper to
grant bail in favour of accused No.1 till examination of other
material witnesses. Insofar as delay in conducting the trial is
concerned, the trial court is directed to dispose the matter
expeditiously without adjourning the case unnecessarily. Hence
there is no merit in the petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed . The observations
made herein is only for the disposal of this petition. The trial
court is directed to dispose of the petition expeditiously
considering the age of the litigation. Liberty is granted, as
sought for, soon after examination of material witnesses.
Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the trial
court forth with.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MN /CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35