- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8728 CRL.A No. 100311 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100311 OF 2025 (U/S 14 A(2) of SC and ST ACT) BETWEEN: 1. RAVI S/O. DUNDAPPA HULLANNANAVAR, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BEVINAMATTI, BAGALKOT TALUK AND DISTRICT-587112. 2. DAREPPA NINGAPPA NILAPPA DADDI DADDENNAV @ DAREPPA @ NILAPPA @ NINGAPPA DADDI DADDENAVA, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BEVINAMATTI, BAGALKOT TALUK AND DISTRICT-587112. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH BAGALKOT RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA, Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8728 CRL.A No. 100311 of 2025 DHARWAD BENCH. 2. LAXMI BAI NELAGI W/O. ASHOK, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: LABOR, R/O. BEVINAMATTI, BAGALKOT TALUK AND DISTRICT-587112. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015 R/W 483 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2025 PASSED BY THE IIND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS, JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN SPL.C.NO.139/2022 AGAINST APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 4 WITH RESPECT TO THE FIR IN CRIME NO.178/2022 BY THE BAGALKOT RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 363, 302, 201, 120(B), 109 R/W .149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2) (V) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8728 CRL.A No. 100311 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Kirtilata Pail, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State, and Sri. Prashant S. Kadadevar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The appellants – accused Nos.2 and 4 have filed this appeal challenging the rejection of their bail application filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, in Special Case No.139/2022, dated 09.02.2023. Therefore, they have preferred this appeal. 3. The factual matrix leading to the prosecution's case is as follows: On 28.09.2022, at around 06:00 p.m., when the complainant and his wife returned home, their daughter Chaitra informed them that Rajeshwari had left the house, claiming she was going to attend to nature’s call, but did not return. Despite searching for Rajeshwari and inquiring with - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8728 CRL.A No. 100311 of 2025 their relatives, she could not be located. Consequently, a missing complaint was lodged with the respondent – Police. During the investigation, it was revealed that Rajeshwari was in a relationship with Vishwanath, who belonged to the Hindu Walmiki caste, this was not accepted by her father, accused No.1. On the instigation of accused No.1, all the accused traced Rajeshwari and kept her at the fruit shop of accused No.7 near Shirur Agasi on the Bagalkot-Hunagud road. Based on the voluntary statement of accused – Ravi, it was further revealed that accused No.1 had conspired with the other accused to kill both Rajeshwari and Vishwanath. As a result, the accused, except Nos.1 and 3, called Vishwanath to Naragund under the pretext of arranging his marriage with Rajeshwari. On 30.09.2022, they picked up Vishwanath from Naragund, assaulted both him and Rajeshwari, and murdered them. Their bodies were later thrown into the Krishna River between Alamatti and Hungund road. The Investigating Officer has completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. In light of this, the appellants, accused Nos.2 and 4, filed a bail petition, which was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8728 CRL.A No. 100311 of 2025 rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection of the bail petition, the appellants have filed this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that this case is based primarily on circumstantial evidence. The Trial Court has examined 48 out of the 59 witnesses, with only two witnesses (CWs.58 and 59) yet to be examined. Furthermore, witness CW13, who accompanied the accused in a Tata Ace vehicle, did not support the prosecution’s case and turned hostile. It was also pointed out that accused Nos.1 and 7 have already been granted bail. Hence, the appellants are entitled to bail on the grounds of parity. The appellants are also ready to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court. Thus, the appellants sought to allow the appeal. 5. The learned HCGP for respondent-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently argued that all the accused had conspired together to murder Rajeshwari and Vishwanath. Accused Nos.2 and 4 are specifically alleged to have assaulted the deceased with stones, and accused - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8728 CRL.A No. 100311 of 2025 No.4 is accused of strangling Rajeshwari. Therefore, individual overt acts have been attributed to these appellants, and as such, they are not entitled to bail. 6. Perused the entire charge sheet. It is evident that the complainant (accused No.1) belongs to the Hindu Kuruba community, while Vishwanath is from the Hindu Walmiki community. The complainant was aware of his daughter's relationship with Vishwanath but disapproved of their marriage. Rajeshwari, however, insisted on marrying Vishwanath. On 27.09.2022, accused Nos.1, 3, and 4 went to Mangalore and traced Rajeshwari, bringing her back to keep her at the fruit shop of accused No.7 near Shirur Agasi on the Bagalkot-Hunagud road. She remained there on 28.09.2022 and 29.09.2022. Subsequently, accused Nos.1 to 5 and juvenile in conflict with law, Beerappa conspired to deceive Rajeshwari into believing they would arrange her marriage to Vishwanath. They called Vishwanath to Naragund, and they transported both Rajeshwari and Vishwanath in a Tata Ace vehicle belonging to accused No.7. On 30.09.2022, they picked up Vishwanath from Naragund - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8728 CRL.A No. 100311 of 2025 and assaulted him. At this time, Rajeshwari, who was in the Tata Ace vehicle, witnessed the assault. After questioning the accused, she was deceived and told that her marriage with Vishwanath would still take place. Later, accused Nos. 4 and 5 strangled Rajeshwari, killing her. When the group found Vishwanath still alive, they caught hold of his hands and legs, and accused No.5 assaulted his private parts with a stone, causing his death. The bodies of both Rajeshwari and Vishwanath were undressed and thrown into the Krishna river near Alamatti and Hungund road. 7. CW13, who was examined as PW8, gave a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., confirming that he witnessed the incident. 8. As per the Call Detail Record, it is evident that accused Nos.1 to 7 were in frequent communication with each other, both before and after the incident, which further implicates accused Nos.2 and 4. Based on this prima facie material, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal lacks merit and therefore dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8728 CRL.A No. 100311 of 2025 Note: The observations above are made solely for the purpose of disposing of the petition. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE Rsh /ct-an List no.: 1 sl no.: 24