Vikasaraddi S/O. Malingappa Kurtakoti Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO THE PETITION MAY BE ALLOWED AND THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 MAY BE RELEASED ON REGULAR BAIL, IN CC NO.662/2025 (CRIME NO.04/2025 ANNIGERI P.S.) PENDING BEFORE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, NAVALGUND, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 103(1) OF BNS 2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶19

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

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8525 CRL.P No. 102179 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri.Iranagouda K. Kabbur, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.Kirtilata Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent–State.

¶25

The petitioner/accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., [483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] seeking to grant bail in Crime No.4/2025 of Annigeri Police station (C.C.No.662/2025), pending in Crl.Misc.No.193/2025, on the file of learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS, 2023’).

¶26

Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under;

¶27

One Manjunath who is a relative of deceased Amrutappa Totappa Itagi, lodged a complaint with the respondent-Police alleging that the deceased Amrutappa

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8525 CRL.P No. 102179 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

was addicted to alcohol and despite advice from his

¶32

parents, he did not stop consuming alcohol.

¶33

On 07.01.2025 at 11 a.m., deceased Amrutappa left

¶34

for work after informing his family and did not return home. On the same night, at about 00:15 a.m., the accused took deceased Amruthappa on his motorcycle with an intention to commit his murder, took him to the agricultural land of one Fakkirappa Gulaganji of Hubballi, where he threw a stone on his head thereby committed murder. Hence, the first informant lodged the complaint which led to registration of complaint and investigation. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and in turn remanded to judicial custody.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

¶36

that the petitioner is innocent, aged 19 years and has been falsely implicated in this case, there is no overt act alleged against him and nothing has been recovered from him. The only allegation against accused is that, he took the deceased on his motorcycle during midnight, and later

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8525 CRL.P No. 102179 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the dead body of the deceased was found in nearby land. Since, the investigation is completed and the investigating officer has filed the charge sheet, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court. With these grounds, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶41

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence punishable under Section 103(2) of BNA2023(304 of IPC). There is a prima facie case against him. As per the FSL report, the blood stained clothes and a jerkin of the accused were seized by the investigating officer. If he is released on bail, he may tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. Thus, considering the nature and gravity of offences, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. Hence, prayed for rejection of petition.

¶42

Perused the material available on record.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8525 CRL.P No. 102179 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

As per charge sheet material, the intention

¶46

behind the commission of murder of the deceased Amrutappa was that one month prior to the alleged incident, the deceased abused the accused in filthy language when he was obstructing the accused. Hence, on 07.01.2025, during midnight, while the deceased was sleeping in front of the Deepak Wine Shop, Annigere, the accused took him on his motorcycle to the land of Fakkirappa Gulaganji of Hubbali, adjacent to his agriculture land where he threw a stone on his head and thereby committed murder. As pr the postmortem report, the doctor stated that there are 16 injuries, and the cause of death was due to heavy bleeding from the head and face, and left side of the chest, and due to bleeding from left jugular vein.

¶47

Later, the investigation officer secured the CCTV footage and arrested the accused on 01.01.2025, his voluntary statement has been recorded and in furtherance of the same, the motorcycle was recovered and his blood

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8525 CRL.P No. 102179 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

stained jerkin and pant were seized by the investigating officer. The investigating officer recorded the statement of CW.11 who is stated to be an eye witness to the event of the accused taking deceased Amrutappa on his motorcycle. It appears that CW.11 is stated to be the last seen witness. On perusal of the CCTV footage, it is not clear as to identify any person. In this case, except last seen witness CW.11 and other materials i.e. the FSL report, no other materials are placed by the investigating officer. Whether the last seen witness has seen the incident and whether the blood stained clothes recovered are seized is a matter of trial.

¶51

The petitioner is aged 19 years and is an ITI Student. The entire case rests on circumstantial evidence.

¶52

The prosecution relied on the circumstances like a) last seen theory b) Recovery of the blood stained clothes and CCTV footages. Considering the nature of offence, age of the accused-petitioner and the circumstance in which he has committed offence, the petitioner is entitled for bail.

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8525 CRL.P No. 102179 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

¶56

the case, looking into the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, gravity of offence, severity of punishment, chances of petitioner absconding or fleeing away from the justice if released on bail, character and antecedents of the petitioner tampering of the prosecution witnesses, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶57

ORDER

¶58

The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is allowed.

¶59

The petitioner-accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crl.Misc.193/2025 (Crime No.04/2025 of Annigere Police Station), pending on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶60

8 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8525 CRL.P No. 102179 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

i) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses and shall not threaten the witnesses in any manner.

¶64

ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court regularly without fail;

¶65

iii) The petitioner shall not involve himself in similar offences.

¶66

iv) The petitioner shall keep the investigating officer informed of his current address and mobile contact number and/or charge of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time;

¶67

v) Any infraction of the above conditions shall entail the prosecution to seek cancellation of this order.

¶68

Pending IAs if any stands disposed of.

¶69

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶70

HMB /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Vikasaraddi S/O. Malingappa Kurtakoti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikasaraddi S/O. Malingappa Kurtakoti v. the 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

Tabrej Aliyas Mahammadtabrej Shaha S/O Manir Shaha Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Moshin S/O Sharif Yaragatti Vs Aswami Urban Co-Ope Credit Society Ltd.

Bhujang S/O. Tukaram Jadhav Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Lavanya W/O Srinivasulu Vs the State of Karnataka

Naveen S/O. Suresh Ugargol Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Ashirvad S/O Srinivas Upadhyaya Vs Smt Rashmi W/O Ashirwad Upadyaya