Praveen S/O Basappa Mudlingannavar Meti Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON REGULAR BAIL IN OLD HUBBALLI P.S. CRIME NO.110/2022 LATER IT WAS CONVERTED AS S.C. NO.5038/2023 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 114, 149, 120b, 143, 147, 148, 341, 302 R/W. 149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8830 CRL.P No. 101461 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CAV ORDER

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶24

This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking regular bail in Crime No.110 of 2022, registered by the Old Hubballi Police Station, Hubballi-Dharwad, pending on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, in Sessions Case No.5038 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 109, 114, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120B, 341, and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

¶25

Heard Sri. Z.M. Hattarki, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Kirtilata Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 – State and Sri. Suresh S. Shettemmanavar, the learned counsel.

¶26

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as

¶27

follows:

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8830 CRL.P No. 101461 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The de facto complainant, filed a complaint with the respondent - Police, alleging that about 1½ years ago, his brother, Deepak Patadar (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased’ ), was elected as a Member of the Gangiwala Grama Panchayat. Deceased was doing good work for his village and was in a relationship with a girl named Pushpa (CW2) from the Meti family. However, without informing the Meti family, the deceased married Pushpa (CW2). About 15 days prior to lodging of complaint, a noconfidence resolution was passed against the President and Vice-President of Rayanal Grama Panchayat, who are none other than the supporters of accused No.1, wherein the deceased played active role, thus, the supporters of accused No.1 were defeated in the said election, thus, all the accused persons developed ill-will against the deceased. On 04.07.2022 in the evening, when deceased was at his home, Basavaraj Maradagi (accused No. 8) from Rayanal village, along with the complainant, arrived at deceased’s house. After introductions, Basavaraj and

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8830 CRL.P No. 101461 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

deceased discussed the Panchayat office matters until 10:15 p.m. At that time, Basavaraj asked deceased to drop him to his village, Rayanal, which deceased agreed to.

¶34

On the same day, around 10:30 p.m., the complainant received a phone call from deceased’s friends, Paramananda Shyamgundi (CW14) and Rudrappa Shettenagouda (CW7), informing him that deceased Deepak had been assaulted by the accused persons with swords and knives. The complainant and his friend, Arun Balad, rushed to Rayanal, where CW14 and CW7 had already taken Deepak to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi, for treatment. Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint, which led to registration of Crime No.110/2022 and the commencement of the investigation. During the course of investigation, the petitioner – accused No.1 was arrested and in turn, he was remanded to judicial custody.

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8830 CRL.P No. 101461 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the marriage of the deceased with Pushpa (CW2) was solemnized five years ago, and there were no disputes during this time. The de facto complainant fails to specify the names of the Panchayat members among the accused persons. In the remand applications dated 07.07.2022 and 11.07.2022, there is no mention of accused No.1’s role or direct involvement and there is only reference to conspiracy and the seizure of mobile phones of some other accused persons. The remand application lacks specific details regarding the overt acts of accused No.1 or the eye-witnesses’ statements. Furthermore, CW14 and CW7, whose names are mentioned in the complaint, their statements have not been recorded.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, accused No.1 has been in judicial custody since 06.07.2022, and the continued denial of bail amounts to unjust punishment, as the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the

¶39

6 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8830 CRL.P No. 101461 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the petition.

¶43

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the offences charged against the petitioner are heinous offences, punishable with death or life imprisonment. The petitioner is involved in the alleged offence. All the accused persons brutally assaulted the deceased. Hence, the deceased sustained severe injuries. The postmortem report indicates 49 external injuries on the deceased, and the cause of death is due to hemorrhage and shock. The statements of eye-witnesses and other witnesses recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which directly implicate the petitioner that he had hatched a plan and murdered the deceased. The learned High Court Government Pleader further contended that the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, he prayed to reject the petition.

¶44

7 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8830 CRL.P No. 101461 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

After considering the arguments of both parties,

¶48

the Court has perused the charge sheet and the evidence. It reveals that the deceased was married to Pushpa (CW2), a member of the Meti family, in a love marriage. About 15 days before the complaint, a no-confidence motion was passed against the Panchayat office-bearers, which led to a grudge against the deceased. On the night of 04.07.2022, the deceased was accompanied by accused No.8, Basavaraj Maradagi, to Rayanal village, where the alleged assault took place around 10:30 p.m. The deceased suffered severe injuries, and after being taken to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries at 02:40 a.m. on 05.07.2022. The postmortem examination report indicates in all 49 external injuries, and the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock.

¶49

The statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., implicate the petitioner in the murder. Given the nature and number of injuries, it is evident that this was a brutal and barbaric act. The

¶50

8 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8830 CRL.P No. 101461 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

petitioner is accused of having attacked the deceased with a weapon, leading to his eventual death.

¶54

The offences charged are grave and punishable by life imprisonment or death. The involvement of the petitioner, as described by the witnesses, points to a wellorchestrated conspiracy. If granted bail, the petitioner may attempt to tamper with the investigation, influence witnesses, or further harm the complainant and other parties.

¶55

Furthermore, if the accused is involved in a serious crime, such as murder, his detention alone cannot be used as a valid ground for granting bail. This principle has been established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi)¹ .

¶56

1 (2018) 12 SCC 129

¶57

9 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8830 CRL.P No. 101461 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra

¶61

and another² , observed in paragraph No. 19 as follows:

¶62

"19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."

¶63

On perusal of the entire charge sheet materials and the present petition, it is evident that this is a successive bail application filed by the petitioner – accused No.1. The charge sheet materials indicate serious allegations against the petitioner, who is accused of assaulting the deceased, Deepak, with a sword (talawar) on his face, neck, and other parts of his body. The sword

¶64

was reportedly recovered at the instance of accused No.1. Moreover, eyewitnesses, including CWs.18 to 24, have

¶65

2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693

¶66

10 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8830 CRL.P No. 101461 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

testified regarding the role played by accused No.1 in the commission of the murder.

¶70

The petitioner’s counsel argues that since other accused persons have been granted bail, the petitioner should also be released on bail based on the principles of parity. However, the allegations against the other accused are distinct from those against accused No.1, and cannot be treated on the same footing. The motive for the murder, as alleged, stems from the fact that accused No.1’s sister, CW2 Pushpa, was married to the deceased Deepak, and the deceased had actively worked to defeat the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat, who were supporters of accused No.1.

¶71

In this petition, the petitioner has not presented any new grounds that would warrant the granting of bail. Given the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of the potential punishment if convicted, the risk of the petitioner absconding or evading

¶72

11 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8830 CRL.P No. 101461 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

justice if released on bail, the petitioner’s character and criminal antecedents, and the possibility of tampering with prosecution witnesses, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

¶76

Accordingly, the criminal petition is hereby

¶77

rejected.

¶78

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶79

RSH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61

Praveen S/O Basappa Mudlingannavar Meti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen S/O Basappa Mudlingannavar Meti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Bari S/O. Abdul Razak Mulla Vs State of Karnataka

Ajan S/O Malikjan Gadiwale Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Sanju S/O Parasu Karande Vs the State of Karnataka

Sadashiv S/O. Kallappa Uppar Vs the State of Karnataka

Kumarswamy S/O Gangadharayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Mehaboobasab S/O Bavasab Hongal Vs the State of Karnataka