Sri. Laxman S/O Devendrappa Hooli vs The State Of Karnataka

-1- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100690 OF 2025 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)]

BETWEEN:

1. SRI LAXMAN S/O. DEVENDRAPPA HOOLI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. MABANUR-591129, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

2. SRI SATISH S/O. YAMANAPPA ARIBENCHI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. JIVAPUR-591129, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by VN VN BADIGER BADIGER Date: 3. SRI BASAPPA @ BASAVARAJ 2025.03.01 10:27:50 +0530 S/O. MUTTEPPA NAYKAR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. BENAKATTI-591117, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

4. SRI SHIVAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA HOOLIE, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. MABANUR-591129, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) -2- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH P.S.I., MURGOD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF

BNSS 2023 (READ WITH UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C) SEEKING

TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND

CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN MURGOD P.S. CRIME NO.213/2024

FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 189(2), 191(2),

103(1), 49, 61(2)(A), 238(A), 351(3) AND 190 OF BNS-2023 IN SO

FAR AS PRESENT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2, 3, 4 AND 6 ARE

CONCERNED.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER

WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025

ORAL ORDER

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

This petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS' for short) is seeking for

regular bail in Crime no.213/2024 of Murgod Police Station for

offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191 (2), 103 (1),

49, 61 (2) (A), 238 (A), 351 (3) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS', for short), by accused no.2, 3, 4 and 6

(petitioners).

2. Sri Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel for

petitioners submitted on 09.08.2024, Kadappa Shirsangi

(victim) was found dead unnaturally, in his land situated within

limits of Srirangapur-Benagatti village. Initially

UDR.no.39/2024 was registered by Murgod Police Station, at

instance of victim's wife Smt.Sridevi. But on 12.08.2024, a

Suo-motu complaint was registered by Police Sub-Inspector

stating, after receipt of provisional Post Mortem Report

('PMR'), when he enquired about cause of death of victim, his

informers had told him that as per instructions of by petitioner,

who was in illicit relationship with victim's wife, Lakshman Hooli -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025

(accused no.2), Satish Arebenchi (accused no.3), Basappa

Naikar (accused no.4), Vittal Aladakatti (accused no.5) and

Shivappa Hooli (accused no.6) had with common intention of

murdering victim, met at between 8:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on

09.08.2024 and murdered victim in his land and thereafter

tried to destroy evidence. Complaint was registered as Crime

no.213/2024.

3. It was submitted, though there was no direct

evidence to implicate petitioners, he was arrested on

16.08.2024 for his involvement in murder of victim. It was

submitted, insofar as petitioners, prosecution case, at best was

circumstantial and based on allegation that he was having affair

with victim's wife, but without any material linking him to

murder. It was submitted, confession statement made by

petitioners, they were implicated without any material. At

outset, it was submitted, statement recorded under Section

161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC' for short)

would not carry any evidentiary value.

4. That apart, there were no eye-witnesses, alleging

petitioners were committing murder of victim. It was -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025

submitted, though in charge-sheet it was alleged, petitioners

had taken supari from accused no.1 to murder victim for

Rs.2,50,000/-, but there was no material to support same.

Though some material was collected i.e. statements of CWs-26

to 28 was in support of 'last seen' theory against accused no.2,

and would not implicate petitioners. Likewise, even CWs-21 and

CW-30, supplier and owner of Taj Deluxe Hotel stated about

seeing petitioner no.1 having dinner with victim, but same was

not corroborated with any supporting material to substantiate

said statement. It was further submitted, CW-20 - Mallikarjun

Savalagi, who was cited as circumstantial witness had not

supported prosecution case, at time of recording of his

statement under Section 183 of BNSS. Thus, arraignment of

petitioners was on assumptions, without any basis.

5. It was submitted, accused no.5 was granted bail by

trial Court and this Court had granted bail to accused no.1 in

Crl.P.no.100053/2025 disposed of on 27.01.2025. It was

submitted, petitioners were permanent residents of Mabanur,

Jivapur, Benkatti respectively, without any criminal

antecedents. And as investigation was completed and charge-

sheet filed on 16.10.2024, they would not be required for -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025

custodial interrogation. On above grounds sought for allowing

petition on any conditions.

6. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for

respondent - State opposed petition. It was submitted, though

initially UDR was registered in relation to death of victim,

during investigation, statements recorded indicated petitioners

had joined together and murdered victim as contracted by

accused no.1 with petitioner no.3. Thus it was a case of supari

killing and nature of offence alleged against petitioners were

grave and serious. It was submitted, statements of CW-1 -

complainant, CWs-1 to 17 - pancha witnesses and CWs-18 to

46 sufficiently established commission of offences by accused.

It was submitted, petitioners in their voluntary statements had

specifically confessed that, by taking supari from accused no.1

had contracted to murder victim, for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- It

was further submitted, offence alleged was punishable with

death or imprisonment for life and as all vital prosecution

witnesses were from same village/locality, there was every

likelihood of petitioners threatening or influencing them. On

above grounds sought for rejection of petition. -7-

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025

7. Heard learned counsel and perused available

material on record.

8. From above, only point that would arise for

consideration is:

"Whether petitioners are entitled for regular bail on conditions?"

9. This petition is for regular bail by accused no.2, 3, 4

and 6 in Crime no.213/2024 of Murgod Police Station for

offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191 (2), 103 (1),

49, 61 (2) (A), 238 (A), 351 (3) and 190 of BNS.

10. At outset, it is seen, offence under Section 189 (2)

i.e. forming unlawful assembly, under Section 191 (2) for

rioting, under Section 351 (3) i.e. threat to cause death and

under Section 238 (A) causing disappearance of evidence are

bailable. And since offences of abetment under Section 49 and

criminal conspiracy to commit offence under Section 61 (2) (A)

would bear same punishment as offence committed, they would

attract same punishment as that of principle which under

Section 103 (1) is murder punishable with death or -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025

imprisonment for life. Thus, nature of offences alleged would be

heinous.

11. However, petitioners claim to have been falsely

implicated, without proper basis. Prosecution case as per

charge-sheet is that about 7 to 8 years earlier, victim's wife

was elected Taluk Panchayath Member. At that time, she began

having affair with accused no.1, which had angered victim

against accused no.1. And about 5-6 months prior to incident,

accused no.1 along with petitioner no.3 and 4 who were his

employees went to house of victim after consuming alcohol and

threatened to kill him. Thereafter at 8:00 p.m., on 29.07.2024,

petitioner met petitioner no.3 and 4 in field, wherein accused

no.1 gave supari to petitioner no.3 to kill victim for

Rs.2,50,000/-, and in pursuance of same, petitioner no.3 met

petitioner no.1 in Weigh Bridge room at 1:00 p.m. on

08.08.2024 and conspired to kill victim. In pursuance of same,

at 2:00 p.m. on 09.08.2024, petitioner no.1 went to Yaragatti

on his motorcycle, met victim along with CW-20. Those three

persons went to Taj Deluxe Hotel belonging to CW-30,

consumed liquor and had food. Accused no.2, informed CW-20

about intention to kill victim, cautioned him against revealing it -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025

to anyone and sent him away. Thereafter he took victim to his

land and got victim to sit leaning onto coconut tree, made him

consume liquor and be intoxicated. Thereafter as planned,

petitioners joined together and killed victim. Petitioner no.2

rolled white T-Shirt and wrapped it on neck of victim and

pinned him tight against tree, while petitioner no.1 caught hold

of victim's arms, petitioner no.4 caught hold of victim's legs.

Thereafter petitioner no.2 came in front and strangulated victim

to death. Thereafter they disposed of T-shirt used to commit

crime in canal with intention to destroy evidence of murder.

12. Though, prosecution claims to have recorded

statements of various persons, none of them are eye-

witnesses. CW-1 is suo-motu complainant. CWs-2 to 17 are

pancha witnesses. CW-18 is wife of victim. Though, CWs-19 to

46 are other witnesses, whose statements are recorded,

material among them would be CWs-20, 30 and 21. Wherein

they stated that CW-20 had dinner with accused no.2 and

victim at hotel belonging to CW-30, where CW-21 was server

and heard their conversation.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025

13. Indeed in his statement recorded under Section 180

of BNSS on 11.08.2024, CW-20 stated that he had dinner at

Taj Deluxe Hotel along with petitioner no.1 and victim and

accused no.2 confided with him about plan to murder victim,

He totally omits to mention about going to Taj Deluxe Hotel on

09.09.2024 in his statement recorded under Section 183 of

BNSS on 16.10.2024, thereby giving rise to prima facie doubt

about prosecution case.

14. Likewise statement of CWs-26 to 28 who claimed to

have seen victim riding with petitioner no.1 is not corroborated

with any material. At this stage, there appears to be no

material or statement that would directly implicate petitioners

except their confessional statement.

15. Insofar as reliability of confessional statements of

co-accused, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratnu Yadav v. State

of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1667,

held follows:

"9. As regards the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, a bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court in the case of Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan1, in Paragraph 11, this Court held thus:

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025

"11. It is true that an extra-judicial confession is used against its maker but as a matter of caution, advisable for the court to look for a corroboration with the other evidence on record. In Gopal Sah v. State of Bihar [Gopal Sah v. State of Bihar, (2008) 17 SCC 128 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 466], this Court while dealing with extra-judicial confession held that extra-

judicial confession is, on the face of it, a weak evidence and the Court is reluctant, in the absence of a chain of cogent circumstances, to rely on it, for the purpose of recording a conviction. In the instant case, it may be noticed that there are no additional cogent circumstances on record to rely on it. At the same time, Shambhu Singh (PW 3), while recording his statement under Section 164 CrPC, has not made such statement of extra-judicial confession (Ext. D-5) made by accused Babu Lal. In addition, no other circumstances are on record to support it."

(emphasis added)

In paragraph 16 of the decision of this Court in the case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal2, this Court held thus:

"16. It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025

suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its

importance. It has further been held that it is well-settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-

judicial confession. It has been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence."

(emphasis added)

16. In view of ratio that confessional statements of

accused before police would require prosecution to establish

that it was voluntary before establishing that contents of such

confession were true and supported by other material and

which inspires confidence, whether prosecution would be able

to establish its charges against petitioner, would essentially be

matter for trial.

17. Apart from above, accused no.5 was granted bail by

trial Court and accused no.1 is enlarged on bail by this Court in

Crl.P.no.100053/2025 (supra). Besides, there is no denial of

petitioners' submission that they are permanent residents of

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025

Mabanur, Jivapur, Benkatti respectively, without any criminal

antecedents.

18. Under above circumstances, and taking note of

ratio in case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1

SCC 40, that purpose of bail is only to secure appearance of

petitioners at trial and cannot be either punitive nor

preventative and deprivation of liberty must be considered a

punishment and further that punishment begins only after

conviction, point for consideration is answered in affirmative,

but subject to following conditions. Hence following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed. Petitioners/accused no.2, 3, 4 and 6 are ordered to be released on bail in Crime no.213/2024 of Murgod Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191 (2), 103 (1), 49, 61 (2) (A), 238 (A), 351 (3) and 190 of BNS, subject to following conditions:

a) Each of petitioners i.e. accused no.2, 3, 4 and 6 separately execute personal bonds for in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

each with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of Court.

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3998 CRL.P No. 100690 of 2025

b) They shall not threaten, tamper or with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly.

c) They shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

d) They shall be regular in attending Court proceedings.

e) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie for purposes of this order and shall not influence final outcome after trial.

SD/-

(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

RH CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12