Vinayak S/O Prakash Bakale Vs the State of Karnataka

Digitally signed by NOW AT SURYA NAGAR SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA GADAG-582 101. LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15262 CRL.P No. 101942 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

(THROUGH GADAG TOWN P.S.)

¶22

R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶23

AT DHARWAD 580001.

¶24

…RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.439 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 483 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO ALLOW PETITION ENLARGE PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 ON BAIL IN SC.NO.63/2024 IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.44/2024 REGISTERED IN GADAG TOWN POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 302, 120(B), 109, 143, 147, 148, 449, 396, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE BEFORE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE GADAG IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15262 CRL.P No. 101942 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime No.44/2024 of respondent/Police for the offence under Sections 120(B), 109, 143, 147, 148, 449, 302, 369, 201 r/w. Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860¹ .

¶34

Brief facts of the case;

¶35

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant lodges a complaint stating that accused No. 1 is the son of Rukmini. Smt. Rukmini is none other than the first wife of the complainant. After the death of Rukmini, the complainant had married one Smt. Sunanda as second wife. After the marriage, there is a constant dispute between the complainant and the petitioner in respect of the property in-question. The petitioner being the son of the complainant has sold three plots without the knowledge of the complainant.

¶36

It is further stated that the petitioner has threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is alleged that the petitioner has an intention to commit murder of the complainant, his wife and his children, made the conspiracy with accused Nos.

¶37

1 For short ‘IPC’

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15262 CRL.P No. 101942 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

2 and 3. On 15.04.2024, the petitioner called Accused Nos. 4 to 8, asked them to come from Miraj to Gadag. It is stated that accused No. 2 has showed the photos of the house and the persons to be killed to accused Nos. 4 to 8. Accordingly, on 19.04.2024 in between 02.00 A. M., to 3.45 A.M., accused Nos. 4 to 8 with a common intention to commit the murder of the complainant and his family, they came from the back side of the house.

¶42

It is further stated that they climbed by holding the plumbing pipe which was attached to the house and entered the house through open window. The son of the complainant-Karthik and the relatives of the complainant were sleeping in the bedroom of the first floor and the accused persons are stated to have stabbed them and committed the murder. Then, the accused persons went to the ground floor and found the relatives of the complainant and they killed them also. All the accused persons have taken golden articles and destroyed the evidence and went by car. Hence, the complaint.

¶43

Based on the complaint, the respondent/Police registered a case in Cr.No.44/2024 against the petitioner. After

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15262 CRL.P No. 101942 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

conducting investigation, submitted the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.

¶47

Heard Sri.B.Anwar Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State.

¶48

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. The entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. As per the averments of the complaint, one Vinayaka who is arrayed as accused No. 1, is the second son of the complainant. The said Vinayaka was staying along with his family. After the marriage, he was living separately at Gadag. It is alleged that he had instigated and conspired to commit murder of all the family members of the complainant. However, no direct evidence to demonstrate that he had deputed some persons to commit murder of his father, aunt and their children. Merely because, accused No.1 had enmity with his father relating to the property, that itself is not sufficient to implicate him in this case. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, learned counsel prays to allow the petition.

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15262 CRL.P No. 101942 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State vehemently submitted that the petitioner being the son of the complainant hired Supari killer and committed murder of Karthik, Parashuram, Lakshmi Bai and Akansha. It is the heinous and brutal murder committed by the accused. The present petitioner being accused No. 1 had enmity with the complainant and he had intention to eliminate the entire family members of the complainant. However, the complainant has been saved at the instance of his friends and also timely intervention of the police. The gravity of the offence would indicate that, it is not a fit case to grant him bail. Hence the petition may be rejected.

¶52

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint, no doubt, the entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. As per the averments of the complaint, accused Nos. 4 to 8 entered inside the house and committed murder to all four members of the family of the complainant. No doubt, the averments of the complaint would indicate that, the present petitioner being the son of the complainant had enmity with the complainant in respect of the property in question. However, that

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15262 CRL.P No. 101942 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

itself is not sufficient to deny the bail when the case is based on the circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the bail petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail with suitable conditions which would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶59

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 44/2024 of respondent/Police for the offence under Sections 120(B), 109, 143, 147, 148, 449, 302, 369, 201 r/w. Section 149 of IPC, on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶60

(iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶61

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶62

(vi) The petitioner shall not involve in any

¶63

criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶64