Shivappa Palatamani Hiregoudar vs The State Of Karnataka

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking bail in Crime No.42/2026 (S.C.No.5050/2026).

The prosecution case in nutshell is as under:

On 21.02.2026, in the earlier hours, the First Informant lodged complaint alleging that on 20.02.2026 at night he saw dead body of female in Sy.No.07 of Forest Area of Malagi village, Mundagod Taluk, the body was cut into two pieces. Hence, the Police registered the case and took up investigation. During the investigation, it was revealed that, accused No.1 committed murder of the deceased Shivakka Somanagoda Patil. Prior to his arrest, he handed over the golden articles i.e., gold bangles of the deceased to accused No.2/petitioner, who in turn, pledged in Muttut Finance, Anavatti Branch, Swaraba Taluka for a sum of ₹ 2,20,000/-. He kept a sum of ₹ 1,45,000/- which was due from accused No.1. Accordingly, accused No.2 received stolen articles from accused No.1 and pledges the same. Hence, during the course of investigation, at the instance of accused No.2, golden bangle was recovered, from the custody of Muthoot Finance.

The very contention of the petitioner is that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case and he is having no criminal incidents. The main allegation against this petitioner is that he received golden bangles from accused No.1 without knowing the alleged offence committed by accused No.1.

Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently contended that the petitioner also involved in heinous offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is likelihood of him fleeing away from justice and tampering with the prosecution witness and hampering the trial. Hence, learned HCGP prayed to reject the petition.

On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the entire allegation is against accused No.1, who in turn, handed over the golden articles of the deceased to accused No.2. As per the charge-sheet material, accused No.1 was due for a sum of ₹ 1,45,000/- payable to accused No.2. Hence, accused No.2 pledged said golden bangles to Muthoot Finance and received a sum of ₹ 2,20,000/-. He kept ₹1,45,000/- and remaining amount was handed over to accused No.1.

Apart from this allegation, there is no involvement of the petitioner/accused No.2 in the commission of murder of the deceased. It is a well-established principle of law that, while granting bail, the Court has to consider the nature of the offence and the circumstances in which the offence is committed. The nature of the allegation made against the petitioner, the likelihood of fleeing away from justice, and the fact that he is a permanent resident of Hiredagodu Village, Soraba Taluk, Shivamogga District, are relevant considerations. Keeping all these factors in mind, when the Court goes through the entire material on record, it can be said that a prima facie case is made out by the petitioner.

Hence, considering the nature of the offence, circumstances of the case, more particularly the allegations leveled against the petitioner, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail in his favour. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following;

The Criminal Petition is allowed.

The petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.42/2026 of Mundagod Police Station (S.C.No.5050/2026) on he executing a personal bond for a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- with two sureties or for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court/jurisdictional Court subject to following conditions.