Gurappa S/O Tirthappa Pujari Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SAVALAGI POLICE STATION, TQ.JAMAKHANDI, DIST.BAGALKOT, R/BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH-587330.

¶15

&RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶17

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 483 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING THAT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED MAY BE RELEASED ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH SAVALGI POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 102/2025 DATED 29.07.2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 85 AND 108 OF BNS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

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

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC-D:312 CRL.P No. 104264 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

Heard Sri. Y.R. Jogi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶26

The accused is the petitioner seeking grant of bail in respect of Crime No.102/2025 registered by Savalgi Police Station.

¶27

The facts, in a nutshell, which are necessary for disposal of the present petition, are as under:

¶28

Ningappa Baramappa Shengavi filed a complaint with Savalgi Police, Jamakhandi Circle, Bagalkot District, on 29.07.2025, which came to be registered in Crime No.102/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 85

¶29

and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, <the BNS=).

¶30

The gist of the complaint averments reveals that

¶31

the daughter of the complainant was married to the

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:312 CRL.P No. 104264 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

petitioner herein and in the wedlock, two children were born.

¶35

From the very beginning of the marriage, the daughter of the complainant was subjected to harassment by the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner used to abuse the deceased-Sunanda, in filthy language and repeatedly told her that she should die. Unable to bear the torture, Sunanda reported such incidents to the complainant on several occasions, pursuant to which panchayats were convened to pacify the disputes.

¶36

Despite the same, on 27.07.2025, there was yet another quarrel, as a result of which Sunanda became frustrated, and on 28.07.2025, between 2.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m., she allegedly hung herself in the agricultural land belonging to the petitioner.

¶37

The incident was reported to the complainant, who went to the place of occurrence and found Sunanda hanging from a mango tree.

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:312 CRL.P No. 104264 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

After seeing the same, the complaint came to be lodged. Thereafter, the police registered the case as aforesaid, investigated the matter in detail, and filed the charge sheet.

¶41

An attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of bail was rejected by the learned Special Judge, and the petitioner is now before this Court.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.R. Jogi, reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition, vehemently contended that the mere utterance of the words “ºÉÆÃUÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä= or “ ¸ÀvÀÄÛ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ” would not, per-se , amount to abetment of suicide, as held in a catena of judgments, and therefore sought the grant of bail.

¶43

Per contra , Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader, opposed the petition, contending that if the request of the petitioner is granted at this juncture, there is a possibility of tampering with the material witnesses.

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:312 CRL.P No. 104264 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Therefore, at least until the examination of the material witnesses, the bail request ought to be rejected.

¶47

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal, it is noted that the words in question were allegedly spoken by the petitioner not on a single occasion, but repeatedly.

¶48

The complaint averments reveal that on earlier occasions as well there were quarrels, during which the petitioner repeatedly abused the deceased-Sunanda, in filthy language and told her to die. In other words, there was continuous abetment by the petitioner, as is evident from the material collected on record.

¶49

There were also reports of physical assaults, and therefore, the mere utterance of certain words cannot be the sole factor to be considered by this Court, at least at this stage, while considering the bail request of the petitioner.

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:312 CRL.P No. 104264 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

There is sufficient force in the apprehension

¶53

expressed by the prosecution that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is a possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses.

¶54

Therefore, at least until the material witnesses

¶55

are examined, the bail request of the petitioner cannot be entertained. Consequently, the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i.The petition is dismissed .

¶58

ii.However, after the material witnesses are examined, and if there is a positive changed circumstances, the petitioner may file a successive bail petition.

¶59

Ordered accordingly.

¶60

Sd/(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶61

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

Gurappa S/O Tirthappa Pujari v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurappa S/O Tirthappa Pujari 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

Raju S/O. Parashuram Baddi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shivayogi S/O Shankrayya Mallayyanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddappa S/O Mallappa Koujalagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Channappa S/O Mahadevappa Sapure Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Manantesh S/O Somaning Pujeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mahesh S/O Mudakappa Balareddy Vs the State of Karnataka