Shri Kuberappa Alias Kubergouda Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2026)

Shri Kuberappa Alias Kubergouda Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner directed to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to conditions: not to tamper with prosecution witnesses; to attend the Court regularly; to mark attendance before the Investigation Officer on alternate Sundays between 10.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. till completion of examination of the injured witness; and not to leave the jurisdiction of Haveri District without prior permission. Violation of any condition entitles the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner (Accused No.3) should be enlarged on regular bail in respect of Kaginele P.S. Crime No.103/2025 pending before the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM Court, Byadgi.

Court's answer

On perusal of the material on record, the wound certificate disclosed no injury on the neck or in the scrotal region and no swelling or hydrocele, and the doctor noticed no abnormality on the body of the injured corresponding to the overt acts alleged against the petitioner; therefore, continuation of the petitioner in judicial custody is no longer warranted.

Ratio / Principle

The assault made on the head of the injured by accused No.1 resulted in loss of consciousness, and the CT Scan of the brain collected by the Investigation Agency revealed fracture of the parietal bone.

Key takeaways

Grant of bail to the present petitioner shall not ipso facto be a ground for parity insofar as the other accused persons are concerned; the prosecution's parity apprehensions are met by imposing suitable conditions, and violation of any condition entitles the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.ratio¶80

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad (V. Srishananda, J.), by order dated 19-02-2026 in CRL.P No. 105333 of 2025 (filed under S.439 Cr.P.C. / S.483 BNSS), allowed regular bail to Accused No.3, Kuberappa @ Kubergouda Kanagatti @ Sanmani, in Kaginele P.S. Crime No.103/2025 (offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 110, 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), arising out of an alleged assault on the complainant's son near Government Primary School, Timmapura, after a quarrel over gravel being filled near Basweshwara temple; the charge-sheeted case is pending before the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM Court, Byadgi, and the petitioner's earlier bail request had been turned down by the Trial Judge. Granting bail, the Court held that although the head assault by accused No.1 caused loss of consciousness and the CT Scan revealed fracture of the parietal bone, the wound certificate disclosed no injury on the neck or scrotal region and no swelling or hydrocele corresponding to the overt acts alleged against the petitioner (alleged strangulation and squeezing of the injured's private parts), so his continued judicial custody was no longer warranted. Bail was ordered on a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two like sureties, with conditions barring witness tampering, requiring regular court attendance and alternate-Sunday reporting to the Investigating Officer till completion of the injured witness's examination, and restricting travel outside Haveri District; the Court clarified that the grant of bail shall not ipso facto be a ground of parity for the other accused, and that violation of any condition would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2589 CRL.P No. 105333 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 105333 OF 2025

(439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SHRI KUBERAPPA @ KUBERGOUDA S/O NANDEPPA @ NADEPPAGOUDA KANAGATTI @ SANMANI AGE 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O SUDAMBI, TQ BYADAGI DIST HAVERI 581106.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ APPANNANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.20 10:19:35 +0530

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KJARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, THORUGH KAGINALE POLICE STATION, BYADGI CIRCLE, TQ BYADGI, DIST HAVERI 580011.

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

…RESPONDENT

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 HEREIN ON BAIL FOR THE CASE REGISTERED BY THE KAGINELE POLICE IN KAGINALE P.S.CRIME NO.103/2025, DATED 18-11-2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 115(2), 118(1), 110, 351(2) AND 352 R/W SECTION 3(5) OF BNS

2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2589 CRL.P No. 105333 of 2025

HC-KAR

2023, PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJM COURT, BYADGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

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

ORAL ORDER

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

Heard Sri. Nagaraj Appannanavar, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P. N. Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

Accused No.3 is the petitioner who has sought for grant regular bail.

Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the present petition are as under:

A complaint came to be lodged by Smt. Manjavva Shankrappa Chikkalli, with Kaginele Police Station which was registered in Crime No.103/2025 on 18.11.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 110, 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2589 CRL.P No. 105333 of 2025

HC-KAR

Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that on 17.11.2025 at about 04.00 p.m., near Basweshwara temple in Timmapura Village, Byadagi Taluk, Haveri District, accused persons by name Lingraja, Shivalingappa and Kuberappa were unauthorisedly filling the gravel which was unloaded for the purpose of the temple activities.

A quarrel took place as the son of the complainant questioned them as to why they are stealing the gravel.

In pursuance thereof, at about 10.00 p.m., on the same day, when son of the complainant was proceeding near Government Primary School, Timmapura, present petitioner and other two persons have assaulted him and he was in unconscious state.

Persons who had accompanied the son of the complainant, namely Somesha Jagdeeshappa Bharmagoudra, was enquired and the incident came to light and therefore, sought for action.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2589 CRL.P No. 105333 of 2025

HC-KAR

Police after registering the case have

investigated the matter thoroughly and filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.

Petitioner and other two accused persons were

arrested.

Attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail is turned down by the learned Trial Judge and thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that the charge sheet is filed and the petitioner is in judicial custody on and from 25.11.2025 and therefore, continuation of the accused in judicial custody is no longer warranted.

He would also contend that the role assigned to the present petitioner is trying to strangulate the injured and squeezing his private parts. No corresponding injuries are noted in the wound certificate and sought for grant of bail.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2589 CRL.P No. 105333 of 2025

HC-KAR

Per contra , learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent-State would opposes the bail grounds with vehemence.

He would further contend that Column No.17 of

the charge sheet makes it clear that the action attributable to the present petitioner would squarely falls within the ambit of attempt to murder.

Therefore, having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner at least till the examination of the injured before the Trial Court bail request of the petitioner is to be rejected.

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

On such perusal of the material on record, assault made on the head of the injured by the accused No.1 resulted in loss of consciousness.

Insofar as, the injured is concerned, as could be seen from the wound certificate collected by the

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2589 CRL.P No. 105333 of 2025

HC-KAR

Investigation Agency, CT Scan of the brain would reveal fracture of the parietal bone.

However, with regard to the overt acts alleged insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, there was no injury on the neck or in the scrotal region. There was no swelling or hydrocele noticed in the wound certificate.

On the day of examination itself, the doctor has not noticed any abnormality on the body of the injured corresponding to the overt acts alleged against the petitioner herein.

Therefore, continuation of the present petitioner in judicial custody is no longer warranted.

Apprehensions expressed by the prosecution that the grant of bail to the present petitioner would act as a parity to the other accused persons can also be met with by imposing suitable conditions.

Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed .

7 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2589 CRL.P No. 105333 of 2025

HC-KAR

(ii) Petitioner is directed to be enlarged on

bail on executing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper the

prosecution witnesses in any manner.

(iv) Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

(v) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigation Officer on alternate Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m., till completion of examination of the injured witness.

(vi) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Haveri District without prior

permission.

8 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2589 CRL.P No. 105333 of 2025

HC-KAR

It is made clear that grant of bail to the present petitioner shall not ipso facto be a ground for parity insofar as the other accused persons are concerned.

Violation of any one of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.

Sd/(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

SMM / CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20