Sharanappa Bheemappa Judi vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

Heard Sri.Manoj J. Raikar, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, Sri.Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1-State, learned counsel Sri.Subhash J.Baddi for respondent No.3 and learned counsel Sri.G.S.Mot for respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5.

The petitioner/complainant has filed this petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 (Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.) seeking to set aside the order dated 30.09.2025 passed in S.C.No.18/2025 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, sitting at Gangavathi in connection with crime No.137/2025 of Gangavathi Rural Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 238(a), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, wherein accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have been enlarged on bail, and also cancel the bail granted in favour of accused Nos.1 to 4 in S.C.No.18/2025.

The brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell are as under:

On 28.04.2024, the defacto complainant lodged the complaint to the respondent police alleging that on 28.04.2025 at 11.00 p.m., the deceased Suresh went near the house of accused No.1 on his motorcycle, and was talking to accused No.4. At that time, accused No.3 saw the deceased and informed the said aspect to accused Nos.1 and 2. Immediately, accused Nos.1 to 3 came near the house of accused No.1, caught hold the deceased, tied his legs and hands with rope, closed his mouth with towel, assaulted on his head and other parts of the body with a wooden club and thereby committed the murder. Thereafter, they shifted the dead body in accused No.1's car bearing Reg.No.KA-36/M-9437 and thrown into Tungapatra underground tunnel situated at Devalapura-Kerekoppa Main Road and accused No.3 took the motorcycle of the deceased and disposed it into Dharoji Lake of Sanduor Taluk. Hence, FIR was registered and the Investigating Officer took up the investigation and filed the charge sheet.

In turn, the accused persons filed bail petition before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, sitting at Gangavathi in S.C.No.18/2025, and the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail in favour of accused No. 1 to 4 with certain conditions.

Now, the complainant being aggrieved by the grant of bail to accused Nos.1 to 4 has filed this petition for cancellation of bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case pertains to a heinous offence of murder and these accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased. The learned Session Judge failed to note that soon after release of the accused persons, they are threatening the prosecution witnesses. Further, the learned Session Judge erroneously held that, except the statement of C.Ws.22 and 26, there are no other strong circumstances to show the involvement of the accused persons and that the prosecution has to establish the chain of circumstances so as to show the link of these accused persons with the crime. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge failed to note that on the basis of the voluntary statement of the accused persons, the respondent-police were able to recover the dead body and motorcycle of the deceased. Further, the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the postmortem report and FSL report, which corroborate the prosecution evidence. Hence, on these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the petition and cancel the bail granted in favour of accused Nos.1 to 4.

Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and learned counsels for respondent Nos.2 to 5 have opposed the petition.

I have carefully perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner/complainant has filed this petition for cancellation of bail on the ground of non-consideration of the material facts, such as, the alleged offence is heinous in nature and the accused persons are threatening the prosecution witnesses and the trial Court has not considered the material aspects i.e., postmortem examination and FSL reports.

Admittedly, the prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution must establish the chain of circumstances so as to establish all the links. Insofar as recovery is concerned, the dead body and motorcycle of the deceased were recovered at the instance of the accused persons. The same has to be established during the course of the trial, in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused persons are threatening the prosecution witnesses. Admittedly, no complaint is lodged by the complainant against the accused persons regarding alleged threat made by them. Further, the Investigating Officer has not submitted any report that accused persons have jumped the bail conditions. Insofar as consideration of postmortem and FSL reports are concerned, it has to be proved during the course of the trial. While considering bail petition, the court has to see the prima facie case and at this stage, this court cannot hold a mini trial. Since the accused persons have not violated any bail conditions and since the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence, the trial court has analyzed the entire facts of the prosecution case, circumstances on which it is relied upon and the trial court also considered the gravity and nature of the offence, and disposed of the bail petition, in accordance with law. Hence, no interference is called for. The petitioner has not made out any grounds to cancel the bail granted in favour of accused Nos.1 to 4.

Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following:

The petition filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 (Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.) is hereby dismissed.

The observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of this criminal petition.