Shivanand Alias Nandu Banappa Hattiyavar Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH DHARWAD RURAL P.S. CRIME NO.177/2025, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 310(2), 310(5), 62(1), 333 OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, SECTION 42(3)(A) OF TELECOMMUNICATION ACT, 2023 AND UNDER

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14936 CRL.P No. 104340 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SECTION 25(1-B) OF ARMS ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD AND ETC.,.

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court, who is arraigned as accused No.1, seeking regular bail in Dharwad Rural P.S. Crime No.177/2025, pending on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Dharwad, for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 310(5), 62(1), 333 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 42(3)(a) of Telecommunication Act, 2023 and under Section 25(1b) of Arms Act.

¶26

Factual matrix of the case:

¶27

The complaint came to be lodged by the complainant namely, Kannappa S/o.Laxman Jadli, stating that he was the resident of Mamata Farm House, Daddi Kamalapur. He was working as a coolie in the said farm

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14936 CRL.P No. 104340 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

house living along with other inmates. On 12.08.2025 around about 09.30 p.m. when they were sleeping in the farm house along with others, around about 01.30 a.m. some unknown persons trespassed into the farm house and applied the adhesive tape on the mouth of them and committed robbery and snatched the mobile phones of the complainant and another. Immediately after committing the said act, they fled away from the spot. On the following day around 14.30 hours, he lodged a complaint before Dharwad Rural Police. The respondent police after registering the case in Crime No.177/2025, conducted investigation. During investigation the name of this petitioner has been unfolded on record as disclosed by the co-accused. Therefore, he is before this Court seeking for regular bail.

¶31

Heard Sri R.M.Javed, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State and perused the material placed before the Court.

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14936 CRL.P No. 104340 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though, allegations are made against the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.1, that he along with others entered into the farm house with an intention to commit dacoity, no identification parade has been conducted. It is further submitted that, though it is alleged that mobile phones were recovered at the instance of the present petitioner, that itself is doubtful. In fact, nothing is recovered at the instance of accused no.1.

¶35

It is further submitted that petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There are no antecedents against the petitioner. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶36

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently submitted that, accused No.1 and others with an intention to commit dacoity, trespassed into the farm house situated at Daddikamalapur and tied the

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14936 CRL.P No. 104340 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

face, hands and legs of the complainant and others and two mobile phones were snatched by accused No.1 who is the petitioner herein. Later, the said mobile phones were recovered at his instance. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail as prayed for.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that, the present petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1. However, it is alleged that two mobile phones were recovered at his instance.

¶41

Be that as it may, on a perusal of the remand application filed along with the petition, it discloses that there are no antecedents against the present petitioner. Considering the said aspect, it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions, that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution.

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14936 CRL.P No. 104340 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

It is needless to say that, ‘bail is a rule and jail is an exception’. The said principle is applicable to the present case on hand. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) The petition is allowed.

¶47

ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.177/2025 of respondent police, pending on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Dharwad, on executing his personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees), with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶48

iii) The petitioner shall appear before the

¶49

Court on all hearing dates without trial.

¶50

iv) The petitioner shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14936 CRL.P No. 104340 of 2025

¶52

7 -

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

v) The petitioner shall not commit similar

¶55

or any other criminal offences till disposal of the case.

¶56

vi) The petitioner shall furnish his current and permanent address proof before the respondent police within a period of one month from today.

¶57

vii) The petitioner shall co-operate with

¶58

the Investigation.

¶59

In case, if the petitioner violates any of the conditions enumerated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶60

Sd/(S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶61

MRK / CT: UMD

¶62

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Shivanand Alias Nandu Banappa Hattiyavar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivanand Alias Nandu Banappa Hattiyavar 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

Shri. Mahaeshwar S/O Kotrayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumesh S/O. Late Ramalingappa Kanakagiri Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha S/O. Edigara Narasayya Vs the State of Karnataka

Anser S/O. Khadir Alias H K Anser Vs the State of Karnataka

Abubakkar Siddique S/O. Nazeer Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri S Rizwan S/O Anwar Basha Vs the State of Karnataka