Sri Nagappa S/O Rudrappa Rainapur vs The State Of Karnataka

-1- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100053 OF 2025 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)]

BETWEEN:

SRI NAGAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA RAINAPUR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BENKATTI VILLAGE, TAL. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591129. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI, MURGOD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, Digitally signed by DHARWAD PIN-580011. MANJANNA MANJANNA E E Date: ... RESPONDENT 2025.02.01 10:21:01 +0530 (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. (U/SEC. 483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN MURGOD P.S. CRIME NO. 213/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 189(2), 191(2), 103(1), 49, 61(2)(A), 238(A), 351(3) AND 190 OF BNS-2023 IN SO FAR AS PRESENT PETITIONER ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAUNDATTI.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: -2- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 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.1 (petitioner).

2. Sri Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel for

petitioner 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 (accused no.2),

Satish Arebenchi (accused no.3), Basappa Naikar (accused -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025

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 petitioner, he was arrested on

16.08.2024 for his involvement in murder of victim. It was

submitted, insofar as petitioner, 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, apart from using allegation as

motive, prosecution relied on statements of accused no.2 to 4

to implicate petitioner to murder. 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. In fact,

there was no material showing petitioner's presence at incident

spot or about his role in it as alleged. It was submitted, though -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025

in charge-sheet it was alleged, petitioner had given supari to

accused no.4 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

petitioner. Likewise, even CWs-21 and CW-30, supplier and

owner of Taj Deluxe Hotel stated about seeing accused no.2

having dinner with victim, some time prior to incident and CW-

20 - Mallikarjun Savalagi, who had dinner at Taj Deluxe Hotel

along with accused no.2 and victim, was that accused no.2 told

him about intention to murder victim. Thus, arraignment of

petitioner was only on ground of alleged motive.

5. It was submitted, petitioner had filed bail petition

along with accused no.5, who was granted bail, and refusal in

case of petitioner was without consideration. It was submitted,

petitioner was 40 year old agriculturist and law abiding citizen

having movable and immovable properties. He had no criminal

antecedents. And as investigation was completed and charge-

sheet filed on 16.10.2024, he would not be required for

custodial interrogation. On above grounds sought for allowing

petition on any conditions.

-5-

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025

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 accused

no.2 to 6 had joined together and murdered victim as

contracted by petitioner with accused no.4. Thus it was a case

of supari killing and nature of offence alleged against petitioner

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.

Insofar as petitioner, in their statements, accused no.2 to 4 had

clearly stated about petitioner contracting with accused no.4 to

murder victim, for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and thereafter

accused no.4 conspiring with other accused to murder. 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

petitioner threatening or influencing them. On above grounds

sought for rejection of petition.

7. Heard learned counsel and perused available

material on record.

-6-

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025

8. From above, only point that would arise for

consideration is:

"Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail on conditions?"

9. From above it is seen, petition for grant of 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 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

imprisonment for life.

11. Indeed, offence of murder would be heinous. But, it

is contended by petitioner that there is absolutely no material -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025

to connect him to said offence, which is disputed by

prosecution. As stated above, prosecution case is in two parts,

first involving motive and instigation which is against petitioner

and accused no.4, and second part of planning and commission

of murder of victim which is against accused no.2 to 6.

12. Prosecution case as per contents of column 17 in

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 petitioner, which had angered victim against

petitioner. And about 5-6 months prior to incident, petitioner

along with accused no.4 and 5 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

accused no.4 and 5 in field, wherein petitioner gave supari to

accused no.4 to kill victim for Rs.2,50,000/-, and in pursuance

of same, accused no.4 met accused no.2 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, accused no.2

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 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025

CW-20 about intention to kill victim, cautioned him against

revealing it 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, accused no.2 to 6 joined together and killed victim.

Accused no.3 rolled white T-Shirt and wrapped it on neck of

victim and pinned him tight against tree, while accused no.2

caught hold of victim's arms, accused no.6 caught hold of

victim's legs. Thereafter accused no.3 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.

13. Though, prosecution claims to have recorded

statements of various persons, none of them appear to be 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. However, their statements would -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025

at best be useful for substantiating last seen theory qua victim

and would not directly implicate petitioner. Likewise in case of

CWs-26 to 28 who claimed to have seen victim riding with

accused no.2. Prima facie at this stage, there appears to be no

material or statement that would link petitioner with accused

no.2 to 6 or to their alleged conspiracy to murder victim,

except confessional statements of accused no.2 to 6.

14. 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. 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

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025

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 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

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025

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)

15. 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.

16. 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

accused 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, subject however to

following conditions to alleviate prosecution concerns.

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025

17. Hence following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused no.1 is 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) He shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of Court.

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

c) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

d) He 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

GRD CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19