CRL.P/104643/2025 of SHRI MAHESH S/O SITARAM KALE Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 21 January 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.104643 OF 2025

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

BETWEEN:

SHRI. MAHESH

S/O. SITARAM KALE,

AGE. 47 YEARS,

OCC. AGRI.,

R/O. RAMAPUR,

TQ. GANGAPUR,

DIST. CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJINAGAR,

MAHARASHTRA STATE.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SYED NAZEER AHEMAD QUADRI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

THROUGH GOKUL ROAD P.S.,

REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,

HIGH COURT DHARWAD BENCH,

DHARWAD-580011.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

***

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439

OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE

PETITION AND RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON

REGULAR BAIL IN SC NO.5035/2025 (CRIME NO.135/2024 OF

GOKUL ROAD PS, HUBBALLI) NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF

COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD

SITTING

AT

HUBBALLI,

FOR

THE

ALLEGED

COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE

UNDER SECTION 310(2) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 AND ETC.,.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED

ON

09.12.2025,

COMING

ON

FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

CAV ORDER

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

1.

The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime No.135/2024 of respondent/Police for the offence under Sections 310 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘BNS’).

Brief facts of the case;

2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 05.10.2024

around 7.00 p.m., the complainant along with his family had left Hubballi to go to Nandyal to offer pooja in the temple. On 07.10.2024, when they were on train at about 4.00 a.m the complainant had received a phone call from the neighbour namely Ashok Javali stating that some five to six persons were broking the window glasses and also trying to break open the door. After noticing the said incident the said Ashok Javali chased them away, during the said process, the said Ashok Javali was threatened by one of the group members and the said thieves fled away from the spot. After receiving the said information the complainant came to the spot and verified the situation and lodges a complaint against the unknown persons.

3.

The respondent police after receiving the complaint, registered a case against the said unknown persons for the

offences stated supra, after conducting investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

4.

Heard Sri Syed Nazeer Ahemad Quadri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State.

5.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Though it is alleged that, some five to six unknown persons were breaking open the door and attempted to commit robbery/dacoity, the facts remains that, nothing has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner or no criminal antecedents to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, learned counsel prays to allow the petition.

6.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State vehemently submitted that, the petitioner is having criminal antecedents and there were six cases pending against him. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there may be chances of committing similar offences, therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail.

7.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the charge sheet, it

appears from the record that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents and there were six cases pending against him.

However, the fact remains that, no identification parade was conducted to identify the accused in order to ascertain as to whether he was present at the time of the alleged incident or not. Having considered the said aspects, it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions. It is needless to state that, merely because several cases are pending against him, is not a ground to deny the bail as the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail in those cases.

8.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made out a case to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: