Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6250
CRL.P No. 100831 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100831 OF 2026
(439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
VINAYKUMAR M. S/O. R. MOHAN,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. NETAJI CIRCLE GUTYAPPA COLONY,
SAGAR ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA,
TQ. AND DIST. SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRABHAVATI M. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD,
SIDDAPUR P. S., UTTARA KANNADA.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.483 OF BNSS,
PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.8 ON BAIL
IN THE CR.NO.23/2026 OF SIDDAPURA P.S. OF PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC SIDDAPURA FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.191(2), 189(3), 191, 331, 109(1)
351(2), 103, 190, 54 OF BNSS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Digitally signed
by
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6250
CRL.P No. 100831 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL ORDER
Heard the arguments of Smt. Prabhavati M. Hiremath,
learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.8, Sri. Abhishek
Malipatil, learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused the
material made available before the Court.
2. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of
1
Criminal Procedure, 1973 /Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarika
2
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , seeking to release the
petitioner/accused No.8 on bail in Crime No.23/2026 of
Siddapura Police Station, Uttara Kannada District, for the offence
punishable under Sections 189(3), 191(2), 191, 331, 109(1),
103, 351(2), 54 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
3
Sanhita, 2023 , pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge
(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Siddapura, Uttara Kannada District.
3. It is the case of prosecution in brief as per the
averments made in the complaint and FIR that the complainant
1
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’
2
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS, 2023’
3
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS, 2023’
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6250
CRL.P No. 100831 of 2026
HC-KAR
4
is the wife of the deceased Vasant Naik . The deceased had a
brother by name Mahesh Naik. Mahesh had solemnized marriage
with one Suchitra. Mahesh and Suchitra have two children. Due
to differences of opinion between Mahesh and Suchitra, Mahesh
left the companionship of Suchitra and started residing at the
house of his brother i.e., Vasant Naik. Subsequently, Suchitra
along with her two children went to Shivamogga and began
residing with accused No.3, Kamalakar Swamy. It is alleged in
the complaint that accused No.1-Suchitra and accused No.3-
Kamalakar Swamy have developed an illicit relationship, which
came to the knowledge of the daughter of accused No.1. Upon
learning this, the daughter started going to her father’s house,
which was opposed by accused Nos.1 and 3, apprehending that
she might disclose their relationship to others. Therefore, both
accused Nos.1 and 3 allegedly made a plan to prevent the
daughter from going to her father’s house. In this process,
accused No.3 is said to have contacted the petitioner/accused
No.8 and requested him to send some persons to stop the
daughter of accused No.1 from visiting her father’s house. In
the course of these events, the other accused, who were
4
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6250
CRL.P No. 100831 of 2026
HC-KAR
allegedly sent by the petitioner/accused No.8, are stated to have
committed the murder of the complainant’s husband. Based on
these allegations, the offences are foisted against the
petitioner/accused No.8.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there
is no allegation against the petitioner in the complaint. The only
allegation made against the petitioner is that he had sent some
persons at the instigation of accused No.3. However, the
petitioner was not present at the scene of the offence. Therefore,
prima facie , there is no material to show the petitioner’s
involvement with the alleged crime. It is further submitted that
the petitioner has been in custody since 09.02.2026. Merely
because the petitioner/accused No.8 is known to accused No.3,
he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. Hence,
prays to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.8 on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned HCGP vehemently opposes
the grant of bail to the petitioner and prays for rejection of the
petition.
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6250
CRL.P No. 100831 of 2026
HC-KAR
6. Upon considering the entire complaint, there is no
material indicating the role of the petitioner or his connection
with the alleged crime. As per the prosecution case during the
course of investigation, the only allegation against the
petitioner/accused No.8 is that accused No.3 requested him to
send some persons and accordingly, he is said to have sent some
persons to commit the offence. It is alleged that the other
accused went to the house of the deceased and committed
murder of the deceased. There is no material to show that the
petitioner was directly involved in the commission of offence.
Upon perusal of the charge sheet materials, the only allegation
against the petitioner is that he had sent some persons at the
request of accused No.3, which is relied upon by the prosecution
to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. This aspect is a
matter to be considered during trial. The petitioner has been in
custody since 09.02.2026 and has been in judicial custody for
nearly three months. There is no overtact alleged against the
petitioner and also at this stage, there is no material in the
charge sheet to establish his direct involvement in the
commission of offence. Therefore, considering these factors, and
without expressing any opinion on the merits involved in the
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6250
CRL.P No. 100831 of 2026
HC-KAR
case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner be enlarged
on bail by imposing the following conditions.
7. Hence I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
allowed
i) The petition is .
ii) The petitioner/accused No.8 is ordered to be
enlarged on bail in Crime No.23/2026 of Siddapura Police
Station, Uttara Kannada District, for the offence punishable
under Sections 189(3), 191(2), 191, 331, 109(1), 103, 351(2),
5
54 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ,
pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC
Court, Siddapura, Uttara Kannada District, subject to the
following conditions.
a) The petitioner/accused No.8 shall execute
a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along
with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the trial Court.
5
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS, 2023’
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6250
CRL.P No. 100831 of 2026
HC-KAR
b) The petitioner/accused No.8 shall not
leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior
permission of the Court.
c) The petitioner/accused No.8 shall not
tamper and threaten the prosecution witnesses in
any manner.
d) The petitioner/accused No.8 shall mark
his attendance before the concerned police station on
every Saturday between 11.00 a.m. to 02.00 p.m.
e) The petitioner/accused No.8 shall attend
the Court regularly during the trial without fail. If not
attend for consecutive two times it entails
cancellation of bail.
iii) Violation of any of the conditions imposed shall
entitle the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
PMP /CT-AN
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15