Dismissed¶55

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

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2025CRL.P/102231/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench (Venkatesh Naik T, J.), 08-07-2025 — Criminal Petition No. 102231 of 2025 (S.439 Cr.P.C./S.483 BNSS): regular bail rejected to accused No.2 in murder-kidnapping case (Harugeri P.S. Crime No.31/2023; S.C.No.5044/2025; Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 363, 364, 302, 201 r/w 149 IPC). Key factors: plastic-pipe assault on deceased, matching DNA report, CW-21 plan-hatching testimony, seven prior cases, rowdysheeter status, gravity and flight/tampering risk.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the entire prosecution papers, the Court found sufficient material against petitioner-accused No.2 to attract Section 302 of IPC. ¶52

Bhujang S/O. Tukaram Jadhav Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8490 CRL.P No. 102231 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102231 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

BHUJANG S/O. TUKARAM JADHAV, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KHANADAL VILLAGE, PINJARPATTI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAVI, PINCODE-591235.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. M. J. PEERJADE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, CHIKKODI POLICE STATION, DIST. BELAGAVI, REP. BY S.P.P. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, BENCH DHARWAD.

¶16

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 MAY BE ORDERED TO BE ENLARGED ON REGULAR BAIL, IN HARUGERI P.S. CR. NO.31/2023 I.E., SESSIONS CASE NO.5044/2025 OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.143, 147, 148, 120(B), 363, 364, 302, 201, R/W. SECTION 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, PENDING BEFORE THE VIITH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT CHIKKODI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8490 CRL.P No. 102231 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

Heard Shri M.J.Peerjade., learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 and Smt. Kirtilata Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent–State.

¶26

The petitioner-accused No.2 has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., [483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] seeking grant of bail in S.C.No.5044/2025, on the file of learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikkodi, in connection with Harugeri P.S. Crime No.31/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 363, 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

¶27

Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under;

¶28

On 18.08.2022, the son of the complainant, by name

¶29

Balappa, had gone to Harugeri at 8:00 a.m., but he did not return home. When the first informant enquired with

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8490 CRL.P No. 102231 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

his other son Bhimappa about said Balappa, he stated that

¶33

he did not know, and in this regard, the first informant lodged missing complaint. On 23.09.2022 at 10:30 p.m., when the first informant was in his farmhouse along with his wife Shantawwa, son Shankar and daughter-in-law Ashwini, the accused-Vasudev and other 4 to 5 persons came in a scorpio vehicle and forcibly kidnapped the complainant. Therefore, the elderly persons settled the money transaction by giving Rs.5,00,000/- to the accusedVasudev by way of an agreement of sale of 02 acres of land belonging to said Bhimappa and thereafter, Rs.17,15,000/- was paid to the accused-Vasudev by selling the said land.

¶34

During the course of investigation, the

¶35

petitioner-accused No.2 was arrested, and in turn, the Investigating Officer interrogated him. During the course of his voluntary statement, he confessed that he had committed the murder of the son of first informant. Therefore, the Investigating Officer recovered the bones

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8490 CRL.P No. 102231 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

and scull of the deceased and investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. Hence, the petitioner-accused No.2 filed this petition for grant of bail.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this case; there is no overt act alleged against him and nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. The only allegations against the petitioner is that he voluntarily caused hurt to the deceased with plastic pipe, which at the most would attract Section 323 of IPC and hence, the involvement of petitioner-accused No.2 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is not attracted. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court. With these grounds, the counsel prayed for allowing the petition.

¶41

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the petitioner is involved in the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC; there is a prima-facie case against the petitioner. The

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8490 CRL.P No. 102231 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

petitioner/accused No.2 is a habitual offender, and there

¶45

are many cases registered against him. He is a rowdysheeter, and if he is released on bail, he may commit similar offence. Thus, considering the nature and gravity of offences, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. Hence, prayed for rejection of petition.

¶46

Perused the material available on record.

¶47

The Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, has filed the charge-sheet. As per the charge sheet material, it reveals that both accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted the deceased Balappa. The petitioneraccused No.2 also assaulted the deceased with a plastic pipe. As per the DNA report, it matches the filial of first informant. Further, CW.21-the owner of poultry farm also stated that the petitioner and others had hatched the plan in poultry farm. Accordingly, they committed the murder of the deceased. So also, accused No.1 used to kidnap innocent persons for ransom demand money and thereafter, used to commit murder, if demands were not

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8490 CRL.P No. 102231 of 2025

¶49

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

met. It shows that the petitioner-accused No.2 is a habitual offender and in all seven cases registered against him. Further, the petitioner-accused No.2 is a rowdysheeter.

¶52

On perusal of the entire prosecution papers, there is sufficient material against petitioner-accused No.2 to attract Section 302 of IPC. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of 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 justice if released on bail, character and antecedents of the petitioner tampering with prosecution witnesses, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶53

ORDER

¶54

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

¶55

[Section 483 of BNSS, 2023) is rejected.

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8490 CRL.P No. 102231 of 2025

¶57

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59