Dismissed¶¶59

Mallesh S/O Thirukappa Bendigeri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2026CRL.P/103537/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail — Section 483 BNSS read with Section 439 Cr.P.C. — offences under Sections 84, 103(1) and 85 BNS 2023 — murder of wife — stereotyped eyewitness statements no ground for bail — possibility of tampering with prosecution witnesses — accused absconded from spot, no delay in FIR — liberty to file successive bail application after eyewitness examination — High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad — CRL.P No. 103537 of 2025 — Justice V. Srishananda — bail rejected (2026:KHC-D:34).

What did the court decide?

Bail petition rejected; petitioner granted liberty to renew his request after examination of the eye witnesses through a successive bail application. ¶¶59

Mallesh S/O Thirukappa Bendigeri Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail petition rejected; petitioner granted liberty to renew his request after examination of the eye witnesses through a successive bail application.

¶¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/accused, charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 84, 103 (and in the prayer, 103(1) and 85) of BNS 2023 in Crime No.157/2024, should be released on regular bail under Section 483 BNSS (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) in S.C. No.5025/2025.

¶¶25

Court's answer

The incident took place in the house of the accused; the accused ran away from the spot and did not take any steps to shift the injured to hospital; there was no delay in lodging the complaint, which was lodged immediately after the incident.

¶¶51

Ratio / Principle

Although the statements of the eyewitnesses are stereotyped, that by itself is not a ground for granting bail by resorting to the special powers vested in the Court under Section 483 BNSS; the complainant, her grandson and others are cited as eyewitnesses.

¶¶52

Key takeaways

The offence alleged against the petitioner is grievous, and there is sufficient force in the prosecution's contention that if the petitioner is released on bail there is a possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses; therefore the petition needs to be dismissed.ratio¶¶56
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to renew his request for bail after examination of the eyewitnesses by means of a successive bail application.ratio¶¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 103537 of 2025 filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. / Section 483 BNSS seeking regular bail in S.C. No.5025/2025 (Crime No.157/2024, Hirehadagali Police Station) for offences punishable under Sections 84 and 103 of BNS 2023 (prayer citing sections 103(1) and 85 of B.N.S.). Prosecution case: the petitioner-accused, husband of the deceased, suspected her fidelity, quarrelled with her daily, and on 11.12.2024 allegedly caused a fist injury to her nose and pressed her neck with his leg, strangulating her; she died and the complaint was lodged the same morning. Charge sheet was filed; among the eyewitnesses cited are the complainant and her grandson; an eyewitness is the accused's son, contended by defence to be tutored and interested. Bail had been refused by the District Court. Held: stereotyped eyewitness statements are by themselves not a ground to invoke the special powers under Section 483 BNSS to release the accused; the offence is grievous, the incident occurred in the accused's house, he fled the spot without shifting the injured to hospital, there was no delay in lodging the complaint, and there is a real possibility of tampering with prosecution witnesses if bail is granted. Bail petition rejected, with liberty to the petitioner to renew his request after examination of the eyewitnesses through a successive bail application (V. Srishananda, J.).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:34 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103537 OF 2025 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MALLESH S/O. THIRUKAPPA BENDIGERI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SHAKARA VILLAGE, HAVERI DISTRICT, PRESENTLY R/AT BEERABBI VILLAGE, HADAGALLI, TQ. HADAGALI, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HIREHADAGALI POLICE STATION, VIJAYANAGARA, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT DHARWAD BENCH 580011.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. P.N.HATTI, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), PRAYING THAT, THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED MAY BE RELEASED ON REGULAR BAIL IN S.C. NO.5025/2025 (CRIME NO.157/2024 HIREHADAGALI P.S.) PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSPETE) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 103(1) AND 85 OF B.N.S. ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHICH THIS COURT DEEMS FIT, JUST AND NECESSARY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC-D:34 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶22

Heard Sri S.M.Kalwad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

¶23

2. Petition is filed under Section 483(3) of Bharatiya

¶24

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS 2023’, for short) with the following prayer:

¶25

“The petitioner/accused may be released on regular bail in S.C. No.5025/2025 (Crime No.157/2024 Hirehadagali P.S.) pending before the III Addl. District and Sessions Court, Ballari (sitting at Hospete) for the offence punishable under section 103(1) and 85 of B.N.S. on such terms and conditions which this court deems fit, just and necessary in the facts and circumstance of the case.”

¶26

3. Facts of the case in nutshell for disposal of the present petitioner are as under:

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC-D:34 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

A complaint came to be lodged by the mother of the deceased with Hire Hadagali Police Station on 11.12.2024 which was registered in Crime No.157/2024 for the offences punishable under Section 84, 103 of BNS 2023.

¶31

Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that the accused being the husband of the daughter of the complainant by name Halamma. After the marriage, accused and deceased had a son and about 5 years earlier to the incident, accused started suspecting fidelity of the deceased and used to pick up quarrel. In order to maintain the financial needs of family, deceased used to work in Anganvadi and taking exception to her working in Anganvadi, accused used to suspect her fidelity and used to pick up quarrel practically every day. There was a panchayat convened by the complainant in order to set right the dispute between the accused and deceased. When the matter stood thus, on 11.12.2024 at about 08.30 a.m., there was again a quarrel in the house of the accused, wherein the accused caused a fist injury on the nose of the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC-D:34 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

deceased and later on when deceased fell down, accused put his leg on her neck and pressed the same forcibly whereby the deceased was strangulated and she was shifted to the hospital.

¶36

The complaint was lodged immediately thereafter at about 10.00 a.m. to Hire Hadagali Police Station and police registered the case. After thorough investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. While so investigating the matter, Investigation Officer has recorded the statements of eyewitnesses who has specifically stated before the Investigation Officer that he has seen the incident where the overt-act mentioned in the complaint has been caused by the accused to deceased resulting in death of the deceased.

¶37

The accused approached the District Court for grant of bail, which was denied. Thereafter, accused is before this court.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC-D:34 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Sri S.M.Kalwad, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds that in the bail petition, vehemently contented that accused has co-operated with the investigation and charge sheet is filed and therefore continuation of the accused in judicial custody is no longer warranted.

¶42

Learned counsel further contended that one of

¶43

the eye witnesses to the incident is none other than the son of the accused who has been tutored and therefore his testimony is only an interested testimony. Barring the same, the statements of the eye witnesses would reveal that it is stereotyped statements and therefore, no probative value could be attached so as to deny the bail to the accused.

¶44

Per contra, Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail grounds and sought

¶45

for dismissal of the bail petition by contending that eye witnesses are yet to be examined in the case and if the

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC-D:34 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

accused is let on bail now, there is a possibility of tampering of the prosecution witnesses.

¶50

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶51

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the incident has taken place in the house of the accused. Admittedly, accused ran away from the spot and did not take any steps to shift the injured to the hospital. Moreover, there is no delay in lodging the complaint and immediately after the incident, the complaint came to be lodged.

¶52

Further, not only the complainant, her grandson and others are also cited as eyewitnesses to the incident. Statement of the eyewitnesses recorded no doubt are stereotyped, but that itself should not be a ground for considering the request for bail by resorting to special powers vested in the Court under Section 483 BNSS.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC-D:34 CRL.P No. 103537 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

The offence alleged against petitioner is grievous enough and there is sufficient force in the argument put forth on behalf of the prosecution that if the petitioner is allowed on bail, there is possibility of tampering of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, petition needs to be dismissed.

¶57

However, with liberty for the petitioner to renew his request after the examination of the eye witnesses with a successive bail application following order is passed.

¶58

ORDER

¶59

Bail petition rejected.

¶60

Sd/(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶61

CLK CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2

Mallesh S/O Thirukappa Bendigeri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallesh S/O Thirukappa Bendigeri 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

Iranna S/O Manohar Jutti Vs Smt. Sushila W/O Chandrappa Kamble

Sharada W/O Geerish Nandanawad Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sadhana Nishabt Lohar Vs Markandeya Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd.

Gonirudrappa Choudappa Tulajammanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Imtiyaz Ahemad M.J. S/O Late Zainul Abdeen Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Mohan L Haramalakr S/O Laxman Haramalakar Vs State of Karnataka