Dismissed¶53

Hanumant S/O. Dyamanna Malagimni v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2025CRL.P/101820/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Successive regular bail rejected; murder case under Sections 302/34 IPC; wholly circumstantial case hinging on CW-11 and CW-13 Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements; earlier dismissal dated 27.02.2025; Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench (Justice Venkatesh Naik T); CRL.P No.101820 of 2025; liberty to renew bail after examination of CWs.11-14; direction to expedite sessions trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; petitioners given liberty to file a similar bail petition soon after examination of material witnesses CWs.11 to 14, and the trial Court directed to expedite the matter. ¶53

Hanumant S/O. Dyamanna Malagimni Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail refused; petitioners given liberty to file a similar bail petition soon after examination of material witnesses CWs.11 to 14, and the trial Court directed to expedite the matter.

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.5054/2024 (Hubballi Rural P.S. Crime No.84/2024) for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The statements of CWs.11 and 13 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. reiterate their earlier statements before the Magistrate, and the prosecution case rests purely on circumstantial evidence.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The contentions now raised by the petitioners' counsel were already discussed in the earlier bail petitions.

¶52

Key takeaways

The petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed; bail is refused.ratio¶53
The trial Court is directed to expedite the matter without adjourning it unnecessarily.ratio¶54
The petitioners are at liberty to file a similar bail petition soon after examination of the material witnesses CWs.11 to 14.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Criminal Petition under S.439 Cr.P.C. / S.483 BNSS, 2023 — Successive application by accused Nos.2 and 3 in S.C.No.5054/2024 (Hubballi Rural P.S. Crime No.84/2024) for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC (murder of Shanmukhappa Hadapad) — Earlier bail petitions Crl.P.No.100850/2025 c/w Crl.P.No.103865/2024 dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 27.02.2025 — New ground: non-consideration of Section 164 statements of CW.11 (Lotus Bar employee) and CW.13 (egg-rice shop owner) — Held: CWs.11 and 13 reiterated their earlier statements before the Magistrate; prosecution case rests purely on circumstantial evidence; contentions already discussed in earlier petitions — Petition dismissed; trial Court directed to expedite trial; liberty reserved to petitioners to file a similar bail petition after examination of CWs.11 to 14.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7989 CRL.P No. 101820 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101820 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

HANUMANT S/O. DYAMANNA MALAGIMANI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. NEAR HANUMANT DEVAR GUDI, ITIGATTI, DHARWAD-580011.

¶11

SAHADEV HANAMANTAPPA NOOLVI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. PUJAR ONI ITAGATTI, DHARWAD-580011.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SHRI RAHAMAN MOHAMMED JAVED, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH HUBLI RURAL P.S., REPRESENTED BY STTE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT: DHARWAD-580001.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SHRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH HUBLI RURAL P.S. CRIME NO. 84/2024 (NOW S.C NO. 5054/2024) REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.302, 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBLI AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7989 CRL.P No. 101820 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

Heard Sri Rahaman Mohammed Javed., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Abhishek Malipatil., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶27

The petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 have filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., [483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] to grant bail in S.C.No.5054/2024, pending on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi in connection with Hubballi Rural P.S. Crime No.84/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶28

Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under;

¶29

One Smt.Renuka Hadapad filed complaint on 08.04.2024 alleging that she was working in Sai Garments factory and residing with her husband Shanmukhappa

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7989 CRL.P No. 101820 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

(deceased) and two children at Vajpaye Nagar, Tarihal. She stated that the deceased Shanmukhappa Hadapad was working as Helper in Pilcon Systems Company., had begun consuming alcohol affecting his health. Thus, he also took treatment in ESI Hospital. On 06.04.2024, after she returned from work, when Shanmukhappa Hadapad came home on drunken stage, she scolded him, which led to quarrel between them. Next day, he had left home early and she saw him sitting near Lotus Bar, while going to work. After returning, she noticed that he had not come home.

¶33

While she was expecting him to return later, at 11:30 a.m., her daughter called her over phone, when she was at work and told her that someone informed her about death of Shanmukhappa Hadapad and his dead body was found lying in garden land near Lotus Bar, Tarihal. Hence, she immediately went to the said place and saw the dead body, which was lying in pool of blood. Thus, she filed

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7989 CRL.P No. 101820 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

complaint, which led to registration of FIR and initiation of investigation.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

¶38

that this is a successive bail petition and in the earlier criminal petition, this Court has not discussed about the statements of CWs.11 and 13 recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., as to the role of accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned; the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the crime; now the investigation is completed and Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet. The petitioners are ready to abide by the condition to be imposed by this Court. With these grounds, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶39

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the petitioners are involved in the offence under Section 302 of IPC; there is prima-facie case against the petitioners, if they are released on bail, they may tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7989 CRL.P No. 101820 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

trial. Earlier, the petitioners have filed Criminal Petitions seeking bail and the same were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2025 and no new grounds are made out so as to grant bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the petition.

¶43

Perused the material available on record.

¶44

The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation, has filed the charge-sheet. The petitioners preferred two criminal petitions i.e., Crl.P.No.100850/2025 and Crl.P.No.103865/2024 after filing of the charge-sheet and the same were dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.02.2025.

¶45

The instant criminal petition has been instituted on the ground that the statements CW.11-Employee of Lotus Bar and CW.13-Eggrice shop owner, were not considered or discussed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7989 CRL.P No. 101820 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Court while dismissing the earlier criminal petitions i.e., Crl.P.No.100850/2025 and Crl.P.No.103865/2024.

¶49

From perusal of order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.100850/2025 C/w Crl.P.No.103865/2024, at para-4, the counsel for petitioners had contended similar contentions and hence, learned Single Judge at para-9 observed that “admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses and entire case of prosecution is circumstantial, dependant on statements of CW-11 and CW-13. CW-11 is employee of Lotus Bar, who stated that victim purchased liquor at 8:30 p.m. and went into mango garden and petitioners purchased beer bottle and alcohol in tetra pack went into mango garden at 9:00 p.m. Likewise CW-13-egg rice shop owner stated deceased Shanmukhappa Hadapad purchased water bottle, boiled egg and went into garden at 8:30 p.m. followed by petitioners who purchased water bottle and cigarettes and went into garden at 9:00 p.m. Indeed, both stated to have heard galata sound, with CW-11 mentioning it to be around 10:00 p.m.”

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7989 CRL.P No. 101820 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

From perusal of the statements of CWs.11 and 13 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C by the learned Magistrate, they have reiterated the earlier statements before the Magistrate. In this case, the prosecution is depending purely on the circumstantial evidence. The contentions now raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is also discussed in the earlier bail petitions.

¶53

Thus, the petition being devoid of merit, thus, stands dismissed .

¶54

The trial Court is directed to expedite the matter without adjourning the matter unnecessarily.

¶55

The petitioners are at liberty to file similar bail petition soon after examination of material witnesses i.e., CWs.11 to 14.

¶56

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶57

AM /CT-AN

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Hanumant S/O. Dyamanna Malagimni v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumant S/O. Dyamanna Malagimni v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Ajit S/O Sambhaji Malame Vs the State of Karnataka

Veerayya Alias Veeranna S/O Rudrayya Mathadanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Hanamanth S/O. Sathyappa Kademani, Vs the State of Karnataka

Santosha S/O. Late Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Santosh Kumar S/O Krushnappa Shetti Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Kanteppa Ningappa Malangi Vs the State of Karnataka