1. Heard Sri.Vishwanath S. Bichagatti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent.

2. Present petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C./483 of Baratiya Nyaya Samhita with the following prayer:

3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the petition are as under:

3.1. A complaint came to be lodged by Rathnamma with Bellary Rural Police on 03.05.2024 which was registered in Crime No.120/2024 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 504, 506, 323, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC at about 2.15 a.m.

3.2. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that about 20 days earlier to lodging of the FIR, Bellary Gandhinagar Police had arrested Ashoka and Harish Kumar in respect of a crime relating in circulation of counterfeit notes. Present petitioner – Nagaraj was also taken to the custody by the police and thereafter, he was set free by the police. In that regard, Nagaraj had visited the house of the complainant and threatened the deceased that he is indulging in defaming the petitioner in respect of the said incident and he would not tolerate the said conduct of the deceased.

3.3. About three days earlier to the incident in the case on hand, complainant and deceased had been to prison to enquire Ashoka and Harish Kumar. After such visit, deceased said to have intimated father of Harish Kumar that he is not taking proper food and he has gone down and father of Harish Kumar was told to arrange for filing bail application. Somebody had intimated Nagaraj that deceased had indulged in circulation of counterfeit notes and there was an oral altercation in that regard.

3.4. When the matter stood thus, on 28.04.2024, petitioner was married to Susheelamma. Deceased had taken a major role in getting Nagaraj married to Susheelamma. But on 01.05.2024, at about 6.30 p.m., petitioner wanted to visit Govindawada village along with his wife. At that juncture, there was an oral altercation between the sister of petitioner and children of the deceased. Complainant, her brother-in-law and Tayappa tried to pacify the oral altercation that took place between the sister of the petitioner and children of the complainant

3.5. At that juncture, present petitioner pursuant to previous enmity, addressed the complainant that he is thief and he should be derobed and assaulted, then only nobody would speak ill about the petitioner. He also threatened that after return from Govindawada village, he would teach them a lesson.

3.6. On 02.05.2025 at about 8.30 p.m., petitioner returned from Govindawada along with his wife. Thereafter, petitioner, his wife, sister of petitioner – Vijayalaksmi, Sunitha, mother of the petitioner – Hanumakka and his relative Ningappa came near the house of complainant.

3.7. At that juncture, deceased came out and stood outside the house. Noticing the same, all the accused abused the deceased in a filthy language and picked up the quarrel. Deceased said to have told Nagaraj that he is newly married and he should not indulge in such quarrels.

3.8. At that juncture, all the persons who had assembled near the house of the complainant, started assaulting the deceased. When complainant and others tried to rescue the deceased, petitioner said to have snatched a knife and told Ningappa to hold the deceased tightly and taking that opportunity, he stabbed Tayappa resulting in profuse bleeding from the injury site.

3.9. Immediately, brother-in-law of the complainant and Tippeswamy and others tied a towel to the injury site and stopped the bleeding and took him on the motorcycle to the hospital for treatment. Doctors who examined Tayappa in the ‘VIMS’ hospital, declared him as brought dead and body was shifted to mortuary. Matter was reported to the police at about 1.a.m. on 03.05.2025 and complaint came to be registered on 2.15 a.m.

4. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused persons inter alia petitioner was also arrested and sent to judicial custody.

5. Attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of regular bail was rejected by the learned Trial Judge.

6. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court, in this petition.

7. Sri.Vishwanath S. Bichagatti, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that conduct of the deceased enraged Nagaraj that too after three days of the marriage and at the spur of moment, incident has occurred and there was no motive for the incident. Therefore, at the most, the act that is attributable to the petitioner would be traced under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC and since, the charge sheet is filed, continuation of the accused in judicial custody is no longer warranted and sought for grant of bail.

8. He would further contend that there was total cooperation on the part of the petitioner during the custody period and there is no complaint that he has tempered with the prosecution witnesses.

9. Taking note of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for grant of bail by resorting the special powers vested in this Court.

10. Per contra, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader reiterating the statements made in the objection statement opposes the bail grounds.

11. She would further contend that complainant, her brother-in-law and Tippeswmay are the eye witness to the incident and till they are examined before the Court, bail request cannot be considered as there is a serious apprehension that petitioner may temper with the prosecution evidence if he is enlarged on bail.

12. She would further contend that for the trivial incident, petitioner has gone to the extent of taking away the life of husband of the complaint especially, when he has taken lead to get the petitioner married to Susheelamma. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

13. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

14. On such perusal of the material on record, as is rightly contended on behalf of the prosecution, complainant, her brother-in-law and Tippeswamy are the eye witnesses to the incident who are yet to be examined before the Trial Court.

15. There was a previous enmity that existed between the petitioner and deceased with regard to the alleged defaming of the petitioner by deceased in respect of involvement of the petitioner in the incident wherein, there was a circulation of fake currency.

16. There was a quarrel that occurred on 01.05.2024 as well. However, said quarrel was pacified and at that juncture itself, petitioner said to have told the complainant that he would teach a lesson to them after his return from Govindawada village.

17. After return from the village on 02.05.2024, petitioner and all his family members formed an unlawful assembly and came near the house of the deceased and they voluntarily took up the quarrel with the deceased. Altercation was tried to be pacified by the complainant partly but altercation got aggravated and with the help of a knife, petitioner stabbed Tayappa. Before stabbing Tayappa, he had told Ningappa who is the brother of petitioner to hold the deceased tightly. Actual stabbing has been seen by the complainant and her brother-in-law and neighbour – Tippeswamy. These are the prima facie materials as could be seen from the charge sheet materials.

18. Therefore, there is sufficient force in the argument on behalf of the State/respondent unless these persons are examined as witness before the Court, there exist a real apprehension of tempering of the prosecution witnesses.

19. It is to be noted that for the death of husband of the complainant, hardly there is any scope for the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner allowing the real culprit to escape from the clutches of law.

20. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that at the stage of deciding the bail petition, Courts are not expected to hold the mini trial to find out the veracity of the case of the parties. Holding such a mini trial would definitely hamper the rights of the prosecution as well as the petitioner during the trial one way or the other.

21. Thus, desisting from holding a mini trial, when the material on record is considered for the limited purpose of entertaining the bail request of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that charge sheet materials at this stage would definitely disentitle the petitioner from obtaining an order of grant of bail by resorting the special powers vested in this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

22. It is always open for the petitioner to renew his request for grant of bail if there is any positive changed circumstances. Gravity of the offences alleged against petitioner atleast at this stage, would be sufficient enough in accepting the arguments on behalf of the State/respondent as well, in opposing the bail request.

23. Thus, from the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the bail petition would not merit in accepting the request of the petitioner.

24. Hence, following:

ORDER

i. Petition is dismissed.

ii. Petitioner is at liberty to renew his request for grant of bail if there are any positive changed circumstances.