- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6538 CRL.A No. 100112 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100112 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SAGAR @ VIDYASAGAR ISHWARAPPA GABANNAVAR, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/o: VARUR – 581 207, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NORTH SUB DIVISION, HUBBALLI, REP. BY ADDL. S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. 2. DODDALINGAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA HULAGUR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: VARUR – 581 207, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 – SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2024 PASSED BY II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN SPL. SC/ST NO. 32/2024 AND GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO. 66/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6538 CRL.A No. 100112 of 2025 OF IPC AND 3(2)(V) OF SC AND ST(POA) ACT, 1989 BY THE HUBBALLI RURAL POLICE ON THE FILE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, IN THE END OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the sole accused/appellant praying to set-aside the order dated 24.08.2024 passed in Spl.SC/ST.No.32/2024 by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, whereunder, bail application of the appellant/accused sought in respect of Crime No.66/2024 of Hubli Rural Police station registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6538 CRL.A No. 100112 of 2025 3. The case of the prosecution as narrated in column No.17 of the chargesheet is that on 15.03.2024 at about 07.50 p.m., when accused was talking over his phone with CW-23, at that time, deceased-Sudhir has snatched phone of the accused and told CW-23 that accused is not a good person and don’t love him. The accused enraged by that, went to his house and brought Axe and assaulted deceased with the said Axe on his neck, shoulder, back of his head and committed his murder. 4. The appellant/accused came to be arrested on 16.03.2024 and he is in judicial custody. The appellant/accused filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for appellant would contend that as per statement of CW-14 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., he has not seen the accused assaulting deceased. The accused is aged 21 years. As the chargesheet is filed, the appellant is not required for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6538 CRL.A No. 100112 of 2025 custodial interrogation. With these, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellant/accused. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that offence alleged against the appellant is a heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The appellant/accused assaulted the deceased with Axe on his head, neck and shoulder and deceased died on the spot. The Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased has opined that, death is due to respiratory failure as a result of chopped injuries sustained. CWs.14, 15, 18 and 19 are eye witnesses to the incident who have stated the overt-act of the appellant/accused assaulting the deceased with an Axe. Chargesheet material show prima facie case against the appellant/accused for the offences alleged against him. If the appellant/accused is granted bail, there is threat to the prosecution witnesses. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6538 CRL.A No. 100112 of 2025 7. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the impugned order and the chargesheet material. 8. The deceased-Sudhir was belonging to scheduled caste. The deceased had snatched phone of the accused who was talking with CW-23 and deceased talked with her and told that accused is not a good person and enraged by that, accused went to his house, brought an Axe and assaulted with Axe on the head, shoulder and neck of the deceased. The said incident has been witnessed by CWs.14, 15, 18 and 19. CW-18 in his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., has stated the overt-act of the accused assaulting the deceased with an Axe on his head and shoulder. The Doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased has noted six injuries over the dead body of the deceased and opined that death is due to respiratory failure as a result of chopped injuries sustained. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6538 CRL.A No. 100112 of 2025 9. On perusal of the chargesheet, there is a prima- facie case against the appellant/accused for offences alleged against him. The offence alleged against the appellant/accused is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. If the appellant/accused is granted bail, there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses. Merely because the appellant/accused is aged 21 years, is not a ground for grant of bail. 10. Considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions/Special Judge has rightly rejected his bail application by the impugned order. There are no grounds made out to set-aside the impugned order and grant of bail. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE RKM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26