SHRI BASAVANT ALIAS BASAPPA S/O RAMAPPA KOUJALAGI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17399
CRL.P No. 100873 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020071762026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100873 OF 2026
[439(2)(Cr.P.C)/483(3)(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
SHRI BASAVANT @ BASAPPA
S/O RAMAPPA KOUJALAGI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING OF: PULAGADDI,
TALUK: MUDALGI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 590 001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. N.Y. DIXIT, ADV., FOR SRI ABHISHEK A. NULI, ADVS.)
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MUDALAGI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17399
CRL.P No. 100873 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020071762026
2. SHRI SIDDAPPA
S/O MALLAPPA KOUJALAGI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING OF: PULAGADDI,
TALUK: MUDALGI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 590 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1, &
SRI KIRAN ANGADI, ADVOCATE, FOR
SRI SANGAMESH S. GHULAPPANAVAR, FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483(3)
OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2026 PASSED BY THE XII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING
AT GOKAK, IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.8020 OF 2026
GRANTING BAIL TO RESPONDENT NO.2/ACCUSED AND CANCEL THE
BAIL GRANTED TO RESPONDENT NO.2/ACCUSED IN MUDALGI
POLICE STATION CRIME NO.181 OF 2024 (SESSIONS CASE NO.8008
OF 2025) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
103(1) AND 109 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, AND
DIRECT THE CONCERNED POLICE TO TAKE HIM INTO CUSTODY,
FORTHWITH.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER
ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17399
CRL.P No. 100873 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020071762026
ORAL ORDER
Heard Smt. Niveditha Y. Dixit, learned counsel appearing
for Sri Abhishek A. Nuli, learned counsel for the petitioner/
de facto complainant, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State, and
Sri Kiran Angadi, learned counsel appearing for Sri Sangamesh
S. Ghulappanavar, learned counsel for respondent
No.2/accused.
2. The petitioner/ de facto complainant has filed this
petition under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking cancellation of the bail
granted to respondent No.2/accused by the learned XII
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, Sitting at
Gokak, vide order dated 13.02.2026 in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.8020 of 2026.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case, in a nutshell,
are that on 30.12.2024, owing to a pre-existing land dispute,
respondent No.2/accused, along with his father, allegedly
obstructed the flow of water to the land of the petitioner/
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17399
CRL.P No. 100873 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020071762026
de facto complainant and thereafter brutally assaulted the
petitioner and his son, Ramachandra, with a sugarcane-cutting
sickle, resulting in the death of the petitioner's son and causing
grievous injuries to the de facto complainant. Hence, the
accused was arrested by the respondent-Police and remanded
to judicial custody. Initially, the learned Sessions Judge
rejected the bail application filed by the accused. Thereafter,
the accused preferred Criminal Petition No.103964 of 2025
before this Court, which came to be withdrawn by the accused
on 12.01.2026. After filing of the charge-sheet, the accused
filed another bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.8020/2026, which came to be allowed by the XII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, Sitting at Gokak, vide
order dated 13.02.2026. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
de facto complainant has preferred the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ de facto complainant
has vehemently contended that the accused filed a subsequent
bail application before the learned Sessions Judge on similar
grounds. In the instant case, there was absolutely no change in
circumstances between the dismissal of the earlier bail
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17399
CRL.P No. 100873 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020071762026
application and the filing of the subsequent application before
the trial Court. However, the trial Court has committed an error
in allowing the subsequent bail application despite there being
no change in circumstances. Hence, learned counsel for
petitioner prays that the petition be allowed.
5. Per contra , the learned counsel for respondent
No.2/accused has vehemently contended that the learned
Sessions Judge has analysed the facts and grounds urged in
the bail application and, upon appreciating the facts and law,
has granted bail in favour of the accused. Hence, no
interference is called for. Further, subsequent to the grant of
bail, the accused has not violated any of the bail conditions.
Hence, learned HCGP prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Upon perusal of the material available on record,
more particularly the impugned order dated 13.02.2026, it is
noticed that the learned Sessions Judge, while allowing the
application, has assigned reasons in paragraph Nos.12 to 16,
which read as follows:
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17399
CRL.P No. 100873 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020071762026
"12. It further reflects from the material placed on record
that there is nothing to be discovered or recovered in the
presence of petitioner as the investigation is already
complete and there are about 24 charge sheeted
witnesses, who are yet to be examined in the course of
trial. But, however, due to the Court being kept vacant,
the trial would certainly take time. Under circumstances,
the mere continuance of accused in custody indefinitely
would rather amount to pre-trial conviction and violate
the personal liberty U/Art. 21 of Indian Constitution as
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Cr. A.
No.2178 of 2011 reported in (2012) ACR 246 : in between
: Sanjay Chandra and others V/s CBI and another.
13. It further reflects from the material placed on record
that there are no bad or criminal antecedents against the
petitioner for being involved in similar kind or any other
kind of offenses, and the alleged incident is shown to
have occurred without any pre meditation, that too, for a
silly reason of getting the water diverted from common
channel. Under the circumstances, the truthfulness or
otherwise of material accusation shall have to be thrashed
out after full fledged trial, which would certainly take
time. Till then, the mere continuance in custody would
tantamount to pre-trial conviction.
14. It further reflects from the material placed on record
that the petitioner is shown to have got permanent
abodes and dependent family members to his credit.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17399
CRL.P No. 100873 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020071762026
15. It is well established principle of law that the grant of
bail is a rule and rejection is an exception.
16. It is, therefore, taking into consideration of the nature
and gravity of offenses, the filing of charge sheet and the
long period of custody, the non-criminal antecedents, the
personal liberty and the well established principles of law
on the point as to grant of bail; this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds for grant of bail in exercise powers
vested in this Court without expressing any opinion on the
material placed on record as to involvement or non-
involvement of petitioner as truthfulness or otherwise of
material accusation must be brought into light only after
full fledged trial but subject to the suitable conditions to
meet out the apprehension of respondent – police. With
the above observation and for the reasons stated
supra, I am inclined to answer the Point No.1 in the
affirmative."
8. Admittedly, the earlier bail application filed by
respondent No.2/accused was rejected by the learned Sessions
Judge upon perusal of the entire charge-sheet. However, while
considering the subsequent bail application, the learned
Sessions Judge assigned reasons that twenty-four charge-sheet
witnesses were yet to be examined, the Court is vacant, the
accused had been in custody for a considerable period, and no
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17399
CRL.P No. 100873 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020071762026
criminal antecedents were reported against the accused.
Hence, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to grant bail. The
learned Sessions Judge has also recorded that the reasons
were assigned after perusing the records.
9. Merely recording 'having perused the record' and 'on
the facts and circumstances of the case' does not sub-serve the
purpose of a reasoned judicial order. It is a fundamental
premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is
committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the
Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the
order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that
justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and
undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give
reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment.
Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals
undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the
criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit
crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice.
Judges are duty bound to explain the basis on which they have
arrived at a conclusion. Where an order refusing or granting
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17399
CRL.P No. 100873 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020071762026
bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there
is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may
require the intervention of this Court. Where an earlier
application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden
on the Court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be
granted.
10. Admittedly, the accused has a right to make a
subsequent application for grant of bail. However, the Court
entertaining such a subsequent application has a duty to
consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail
applications were rejected. In such cases, the Court is also
required to record the fresh grounds that persuade it to take a
view different from the one taken while considering the earlier
application.
11. In the impugned order, I do not find any such fresh
grounds recorded by the learned Sessions Judge while granting
bail. It has also failed to take into consideration that, on earlier
occasions, the bail applications had been rejected. The bail
application filed before the trial Court during the investigation
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17399
CRL.P No. 100873 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020071762026
stage was rejected, and the accused had also approached this
Court, but the petition was withdrawn. From the impugned
order, I do not find any indication that the learned Sessions
Judge took note of the grounds that persuaded the Court to
reject the earlier bail applications. Such an approach, in my
opinion, is contrary to the binding nature of the judgments of
the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in a lis between the same
parties and, in effect, tends to ignore and thereby render
ineffective the principles enunciated therein, which have a
binding character.
12. For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered
opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in
granting bail to respondent No.2/accused on the ground that he
had been in custody for a period of thirteen months, that there
was no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future,
or that the Court was vacant, without taking into consideration
the other factors emerging from the charge-sheet. Accordingly,
I pass the following
O R D E R
i. Criminal petition is allowed .
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17399
CRL.P No. 100873 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020071762026
ii. The order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the XII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, Sitting at Gokak, in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8020 of 2026 is set aside.
iii. The bail bonds of respondent No.2/accused stand
cancelled, and respondent No.2 is directed to surrender
before the learned Sessions Judge. Further, respondent
No.1-State is directed to take respondent No.2 into
custody, forthwith.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to
the learned Sessions Judge.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KVK /CT-SK
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1