- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13879 CRL.A No. 100509 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100509 OF 2025 (U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT) BETWEEN: NIYAZ AHMED S/O. SAHEBLAL PEERJADE, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. AT. POST. AURWAD, TALUKA SHIRIOL, DIST. KOLHAPUR, PIN CODE-416001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SHANKESHWAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. 2. SHIVAKKA W/O. LAXMAN PUJERI, AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. VANTAMURI VILLAGE, TALUKA AND DIST. BELAGAVI, PINCODE-590001, (DEAD). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH.) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13879 CRL.A No. 100509 of 2025 OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 IN SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION CRIME NO.109/1996, DATED 01.05.1996 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 504 R/W 149 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(X), 3(1)(XI) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN SPLIT UP CHARGE SHEET FILED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.827/2001, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioner, who is accused No.6 in Crime No.109/1996 of respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is before this Court, seeking for grant of regular bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the complaint came to be lodged on 01.05.1996 by one Shivakka stating that the victim and her son while returning after the work, the accused person, accosted the victim and her son and took them to the village namely, Bekkadi, wherein, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13879 CRL.A No. 100509 of 2025 victim and her son were beaten up with sticks and wooden reapers. Thereafter, both persons were brought to the Sankeshwara to the house of the victim and told the complainant that her children had stolen de-husked tamarind and they wanted to search the house. At that time, the complainant and her daughter screamed for help, the accused fled away from the spot. 3. It is further stated that the accused persons knowingly that the complainant and her children are belonging to scheduled caste, assaulted them. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered against the accused. 4. Heard Sri. Mahantesh S. Hiremath, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Praveen Y. Devaraddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State and perused the material placed before the Court. 5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that, the appellant is arrayed as accused No.6, no specific overt act is attributed against the appellant. In fact, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13879 CRL.A No. 100509 of 2025 the appellant had not scolded the complainant and her family members. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions, he will abide the conditions in the event of his release on bail is the submission. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for State vehemently submitted that the averments of the complaint would indicate that, the complainant and her children were beaten up by the appellant and others, they wanted to conduct the search of the house in order to find out the de-husked tamarind. The complainant and her children were scolded by naming their caste. Therefore, there are materials to reject the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint and charge sheet, the complainant and her son were working with accused No.1. When they were coming, the appellant and others apprehended them and assaulted - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13879 CRL.A No. 100509 of 2025 them stating that, the complainant and her children have stolen tamarind. Hence, they were scolded by naming caste. 8. This Court is of the opinion that on perusal of the averments of the complaint, no force is there to deny bail. It is needless to state that, while considering the bail application, merit of the case need not be mentioned. However, the Court must satisfy the averments of the complaint and exercise its discretionary power judiciously. 9. Keeping in mind the settled principle of law, it is appropriate to grant bail. 10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The appellant/accused No.6 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.109/1996 of respondent-police, on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13879 CRL.A No. 100509 of 2025 one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (iii) The appellant shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court. (iv) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail. (vi) The appellant shall not involve in any criminal cases till disposal of the case. In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE MRK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33