- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2521 CRL.A No. 200112 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200112 OF 2025 (U/S 14 (A)(2)) BETWEEN: MUTTAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA AMARAGOL, AGE:26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. MUDNAL, TQ.MUDDEBIHAL, DIST.VIJAYAPURA-586101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH, MUDDEBIHAL POLICE STATION, DIST.VIJAYAPURA-586101, R/BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH. 2. SMT. SHANTAVVA BASAPPA LAMANI @ RATHOD, AGE:65 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK, R/O. MUDNAL VILLAGE TANDA, TQ.MUDDEBIHAL, DIST.VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL.SPP FOR R1; SRI A.D. RATHOD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/SEC. 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO, I) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.03.2025 PASSED IN CRL MISC NO.357/2025 BY II- Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2521 CRL.A No. 200112 of 2025 ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE VIJAYAPUR. II) THAT, FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE AMONGST OTHERS, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT, THE COURT BE PLEASED TO GRANT IN REGULAR BAIL TO THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.3 IN SPL CASE (SC/ST) NO.11/2025 (MUDDEBIHAL PS CRIME NO.250/2024 DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA) PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE VIJAYAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 64, 62, 115(2), 103(1), 3(5) OF BNS 2023 AND U/SEC 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDEMENT ACT, 2015. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.3 seeking to set aside the order dated 26.03.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.357/2025 by II-Additional District and Sessions and Special Judge, Vijayapur, and to enlarge the appellant on regular bail in Spl.Case (SC/ST) No.11/2025 (arising out of Crime No.250/2024 registered by Muddebihal Police Station), pending on the file of II- Additional District and Sessions and Special Judge, Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 64, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2521 CRL.A No. 200112 of 2025 62, 115(2), 103(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. Factual matrix of the case: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant lodged a complaint stating that her daughter Shobha married to Rohit @ Kalyankumar ten years ago. After two years of the marriage, her daughter came back to her parents’ house. It is stated that Shobha was residing with Saifu S/o Chittu Chavan, from the last eight years. From eight to nine months prior to filing of the complaint, she was in illicit relationship with Basha S/o Kashimsab. 3. On 30.10.2024, the deceased had expressed her unhappiness and told the complainant that she wants to die. On 02.11.2024 at about 7.00 a.m., when the complainant was in her house, the complainant received a message that Shobha found dead in the land of Mallappa S/o Balappa Doddamani. Immediately, she went to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2521 CRL.A No. 200112 of 2025 spot and saw the dead body. Thereafter, she lodged the complaint. Based on the said complaint, the respondent- Police registered the case, conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet. 4. Heard Sri.Shivanand V.Pattanashetti, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Siddaling P.Patil, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri.A.D.Rathod, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is arrayed as accused No.3. He has been falsely implicated in this case. None of the witnesses have seen the appellant committing the murder of the deceased. It is further submitted that when the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail by showing leniency. 6. It is further submitted that the appellant would abide the conditions that may be imposed by the Court in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2521 CRL.A No. 200112 of 2025 the event of releasing him on bail. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that the charge sheet averments would indicate that the complainant had received information that her daughter died in the land of Mallappa S/o Balappa Doddamani and she lodged the complaint suspecting the involvement of Basha and others. During the investigation, the respondent-Police have deleted the name of Basha and found the involvement of accused Nos.2 and 3 namely, Suresh Ningappa Doddamani and Muttappa Shivappa Amaragol, who is the appellant herein. 8. It is further submitted that though the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, the fact remains that, there are witnesses to the last seen theory. Accused Nos.2 and 3 took the deceased along with them on the pretext of resolving the dispute between herself and Saifu. Thereafter, both accused Nos.2 and 3 tried to exploit her - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2521 CRL.A No. 200112 of 2025 sexually. When she refused to co-operate with them, accused No.3 committed the murder of the deceased by pressing her neck. The medical report and the opinion of the doctor clearly go to show that the death is due to compression of neck. Such being the fact, if the appellant is released on bail, there may be chances of absconding from the case. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant bail to the appellant. Making such submissions, he prays to reject the appeal. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and he further submitted that the deceased belongs to scheduled caste and she has suffered at the hands of the appellant. The investigation has been completed and the involvement of the appellant has been established by way of filing charge sheet. At this juncture, if the appellant is released on bail, there may be chances of absconding from the case. Hence, it is not appropriate - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2521 CRL.A No. 200112 of 2025 to grant him bail. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the charge sheet that the appellant is arrayed as accused No.3 in this case and the allegations made against him is that he was forcing the deceased to have illicit relationship with him. When she refused for the same, he assaulted her and committed her murder by compressing her neck. 11. On receiving the information that her daughter is found dead in the land of Mallappa S/o Balappa Doddamani, the complainant went to the spot and saw the dead body and suspected that some foul play had taken place and she lodged the complaint. 12. Be that as it may, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. None of the witnesses have seen appellant i.e., accused No.3 committing the murder of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2521 CRL.A No. 200112 of 2025 deceased. In fact, the entire narration had taken place on the basis of the voluntary statement made by the appellant and others. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting to the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has made out a case to grant him bail. 13. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.03.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.357/2025 by II-Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Vijayapur, is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Spl. Case (SC/ST) No.11/2025 (arising out of Crime No.250/2024 registered by Muddebihal Police Station), pending on the file of II-Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 62, 115(2), 103(1), 3(5) of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2521 CRL.A No. 200112 of 2025 BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, subject to the following conditions: a) The appellant shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. b) The appellant shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. c) The appellant shall not hamper the Court proceedings. d) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all the hearing dates without fail. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT:PK