Sharnappa vs The State Of Karnataka

The petitioner-accused No.6 has filed Crl.P. No.102570/2026, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.124/2026 of Jamkhandi Rural Police Station, Bagalkote District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61, 109, 125(a), 125(b), 287, 288, 326(f), 351(3) and 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9(B)(1)(B) of the Explosives Act, 1984, pending on the file of learned JMFC Court, Banahatti, Bagalkote District.

The petitioner-accused No.7 has filed Crl.P.No.102583/2026, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.124/2026 of Jamkhandi Rural Police Station, Bagalkote District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 125(a), 125(b), 287, 288, 326(f), 351(3), 351(4) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9(B)(1)(B) of the Explosives Act, 1984, pending on the file of learned JMFC Court, Banahatti, Bagalkote District

Brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell are as under:

On 25.07.2026, at about 10:45 p.m. the vehicle of the first informant bearing No.KA-48/N-4038 Mahindra XUV 300 was parked by the side of the road in front of Yuvaraj Wine Shop at Jangali Cross Hipparagi Village, which was exploded, thereby caused damage to the car and the injuries to one Yallaling Parasappa Pujari, who was passing by on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-48/U-4728. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged the complaint.

During the course of investigation, these petitioners and others were arrested by the respondent-police and in turn, they were remanded to judicial custody. Hence, these petitions.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they are innocent and they have not committed any alleged offence. These petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The trial Court already granted bail in favour of accused No. 3 and 4 in Criminal Misc.No.55129/2026 dated 17.09.2026. The allegations made against accused No.3 and 4 are similar. Hence on the ground of parity also they are entitled for bail. The petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed to allow the petitions.

Per contra, learned HCGP contended that there is a prima facie allegations against the petitioners and they are involved in the alleged crime. If they are released on bail, there is a risk of tampering with evidence and hampering the trial. Hence, learned HCGP prayed to reject the petitions.

Perused the material available on record.

The record discloses that on 21.07.2026 during night hours, the vehicle of the defacto complainant was parked by the side of the road in front of wine shop and the same was exploded. The record further reveals that there is a property dispute between accused No. 1 and the defacto complainant and hence accused No. 1 collected explosive substance and kept the same underneath to the vehicle. Thus it is exploded. The incident occurred when the defacto complainant entered the wine shop.

The records reveal that another injured (motorcyclist) was already discharged from the hospital. Admittedly, the trial Court granted bail to accused No.3 and 4. The alleged offences are not punishable with death of imprisonment for life. The only allegation against accused No. 6 and 7 is that they sold explosive substance to accused No. 1. Hence, pursuant to the voluntary statement of accused No. 1, these petitioners are involved.

It is well established principles of law that while granting bail, the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, circumstances in which the offence is committed, the position and status of the petitioners with reference to the victim and witnesses, likelihood of fleeing away from justice, of repeating same offences by the petitioners, of tampering with the witnesses, character and antecedents of the petitioners. Further, the law is well settled that while disposing of the bail petition, the Court need not scan the prosecution papers and hold mini trial.

Keeping all these factors in mind, upon perusal of the entire material placed on record this court is of the considered view that, prima facie there are no reasonable and sufficient grounds to believe, at this stage, that the petitioners are guilty of the offences alleged against him. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for regular bail.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

The Criminal Petition No.102570/2026 is allowed. The petitioner-accused No.6 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.124/2026 of Jamkhandi Rural Police Station, Bagalkote District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61, 109, 125(a), 125(b), 287, 288, 326(f), 351(3) and 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9(B)(1)(B) of the Explosives Act, 1984, pending on the file of learned JMFC Court, Banahatti, Bagalkote District, on he executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of Trial Court.

The Criminal Petition No.102583/2026 is allowed. The petitioner-accused No.7 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.124/2026 of Jamkhandi Rural Police Station, Bagalkote District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 125(a), 125(b), 287, 288, 326(f), 351(3), 351(4) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9(B)(1)(B) of the Explosives Act, 1984, pending on the file of learned JMFC Court, Banahatti, Bagalkote District, on he executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of Trial Court, subject to the following conditions: