Sri Basavaraj & Anr. vs The State Of Karnataka

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Santosh B.Malagoudar for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 6 and Sri.Dayanand Sangreshi, learned HCGP for respondent-State.

The petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 6 have filed this petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail in connection with crime No.111/2025 of Ilkal Rural Police Station, Bagalkot registered for the offences punishable under Sections 118(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 103(1), 352, 351(2), 324(4) r/w 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Court, Hunagund, District Bagalkot.

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

The defacto complainant by name Parvatewwa Kumbar lodged a complaint on 01.10.2025 alleging that herself, her husband Mallappa and her children by name Chandrashekhar and Vithal are residing together at Chinnapur SK Village of Islampur. Their family property situated adjacent to Islampur road and the property was partitioned. Two acres of land was fallen to the share of her husband's brother by name Basappa and four acres of land has fallen to the share of her husband. After the partition, her brother-in-law by name Basappa used to prevent them in using the pathway, and as such, there is dispute between both the families. When such being the case, about 4-5 days back, prior to the incident, Basappa and his family members had laid stones on the pathway and when the family of the defacto complainant requested them to remove the stones, they picked up quarrel and threatened them with dire consequences. On 30.09.2025, at 09.00 p.m., her husband Mallappa and her elder son Chadrashekar had visited their landed property. On 01.10.2026, when her husband came back at about 6.00 a.m. and her son Chadrashekar came back at 7.00 a.m., Basappa and his family members picked up quarrel with her husband and son wherein these petitioners and others were assaulted with axe, iron rod and club. Her husband died on the spot and her son Chandrashekhar sustained severe injuries. Thus, the defacto complainant lodged the complaint.

During the course of investigation, these petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 6 were arrested and in turn, they were remanded to judicial custody. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 6 contended that petitioners are falsely implicated in the case. Prima facie, there is no material against the petitioners. The principal accused are already enlarged on bail. The investigation is completed and the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet. The further detention of the petitioners is not at all necessary. The petitioners undertakes to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this court. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed to allow the petition.

The learned HCGP vehemently contented that there is prima facie material against the petitioners. The petitioners are involved in the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023. There are injured eyewitnesses to the incident. If the petitioners are released on bail, they may tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the petitioners are not entitled for regular bail. Hence, learned HCGP prayed to reject the petition.

Perused the material available on record. The Investigating Officer after completion of the investigation has filed the charge sheet. The charge sheet material clearly demonstrates that there was a dispute between the family of the defacto complainant and the accused persons with regard to the pathway. There is no dispute that the complainant family and accused family are brothers. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the eyewitness to the incident and they have stated about the individual overt act of accused Nos.1 to 7, and the manner in which they assaulted the deceased. As per the allegations made against the accused persons, accused No.1 assaulted with club on the head of the deceased. Accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted with club, accused No.4 assaulted with chappal, accused No.5 assaulted with club, accused No.6 assaulted with axe and accused No.7 assaulted the deceased with rod.

The bail orders furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioners clearly demonstrate that the learned Sessions Judge granted bail in favour of accused Nos.1, 4 and 7 and the allegations made against accused Nos. 1 and 4 are similar. The allegation against accused No.2 is that, he also assaulted the deceased with club and rod. The cause of death as per the postmortem examination report is that, death is due to head injury sustained as a result of subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage. Since the learned Sessions Judge granted bail to accused No.1, who assaulted the deceased with the club on his head, the allegation made against accused Nos.2 and 6 is also similar.

On perusal of the entire prosecution papers and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, looking into the nature of allegation made against the petitioners, gravity of offence, severity of punishment, chances of petitioners absconding or fleeing away from justice if released on bail, character and antecedents of the petitioners tampering of the prosecution witnesses, and on the ground of parity also, the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 6 are entitled for regular bail.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: