CRL.P/104610/2025 of ANKUR SINGH S/O BABANSINGH SINGILAL Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 22 January 2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.8 and 9 seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime No.90/2020 of respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(b), 302, 303, 201, 387, 506, r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and 25 of Arms Act, pending before the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi.

Brief facts of the case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.8 and 9 have been convicted and they were in Mysuru Central Prison. They have been shifted to Dharwad Prison. In the said prison they came into contact with deceased-Irfan @ fruit Irfan. At that time, accused No.5 was introduced by another prison namely Swami. The said accused No.6 came in contact with accused No.5 and he has introduced accused No.5 to accused No.1 namely Aftab Bepari. There was dispute in respect of land bearing Sy.No.394 measuring

HC-KAR

06 acres 30 guntas belonging to Mujeeb Ur Rahman. The accused No.5 has introduced C.W.-160/Mujeeb Ur Rahman to accused No.6 to solve the dispute stating that the deceased had illegally acquired the disputed land.

3. Accused No.6 gave assurance to CW-160 that the deceased is known to him and he will solve the issue. At the same time accused Nos.1 and 5 informed accused No.6 that deceased Irfan was collecting Hafta in the name of accused No.6. Accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 called deceased over phone and demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs. However, the same was denied by the deceased and insulted accused No.6. The accused No.6 became angry against the said Irfan and decided to kill him and hatched conspiracy with other accused.

4. It is further stated that the petitioners are stated to have killed the said Irfan by using weapon and fled away from the spot. Based on the complaint of Usman Shek,

HC-KAR

a F.I.R came to be registered in Crime No.90/2020 for the offences stated supra.

5. The submissions of the leaned counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.8 and 9, they are in judicial custody for the past 05 years. Except voluntary statement of the co-accused, no eye-witnesses were there to identify the present petitioners.

6. It is further submitted that there are 158 witnesses to the case. All the witnesses are required to be examined. There is an inordinate delay in conducting the trial. The delay certainly would violate the rights of the accused to have speedy justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again consistently clarified the rights and personal liberty of the prisoners. It is further submitted that the bail is a rule and jail is an exception. Therefore, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions.

HC-KAR

They will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of their release on bail.

7. Per contra, learned Additional SPP filed statement of objections and submitted that the petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.8 and 9. They have been hired by accused No.6 who was having enmity with the deceased. Accused No.6 has provided the weapons to the present petitioners. The petitioners have fired and shot the deceased dead. As the petitioners have committed heinous offence and moreover they are the sharp shooters came from Bombay, it is not appropriate to grant bail as there is a chance of absconding from the case. Making such submissions prays to reject the petition.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the charge sheet, it is stated that the accused Nos.8 and 9 are stated to be the sharp shooters. Accused Nos.7 to 9 are stated to have killed the deceased by using the weapon. It

HC-KAR

is needless to state that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.

9. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention that the delay in conducting the trial as violated the fundamental rights of the prisoners. The petitioners have been in judicial custody for the past 05 years. Such being the fact, it is appropriate to consider the said aspect and also it is appropriate to allow the said application. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The petition is allowed. ii. The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.90/2020, of respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(b), 302, 303, 201, 387, 506, r/w 149 of I.P.C and 25 of Arms Act, pending before the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, on executing

HC-KAR

personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. iii. The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court. iv. The petitioners shall mark their attendance in the jurisdictional Police Station once in 15 days, on Sunday between 10.00 am to 5.00 pm. v. The petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing, without fail.

In case, if the petitioners violate any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

Sd/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE

NM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3