- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8517 CRL.A No. 100656 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100656 OF 2024 (U/S.14 A(2) of SC & ST ACT) BETWEEN: SRI. AJAY KISHORE S/O. NAGESH, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR KAMAKSHAMMA TEMPLE, GADANG STREET, COWL BAZAR, BALLARI, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY COWL BAZAR P.S., REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001. 2. SRI. GOPAL NAIK S/O. DASA NAIK, D.NO.105, WAR NO.29, 1ST CROSS, OPP. OLD FOREST QUARTERS, NEAR BELAGAL CROSS, RAMANJEYA NAGAR, COWL BAZAR, BALLARI-583101, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.14 A(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ATROCITIES CASES AND I-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT BALLARI IN SPL.C. NO.1067/2020 DATED 16.10.2024, IN CRIME NO.108/2020 OF COWL BAZAR P.S. BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 120(B), 212, 109 R/W. 149 OF IPC AND U/S.3(2)2(v) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT AND U/S.4, 25(1)(B) OF ARMS ACT AND GRANT BAIL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8517 CRL.A No. 100656 of 2024 THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Shri Neelendra D.Gunde., learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Jairam Siddi., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1– State. 2. The appellant-accused No.1 has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge for Atrocity Cases and I-Additional Sessions Judge, Ballari in Spl.C.No.1067/2020 in connection with Cowl Bazar Police Station, Ballari Crime No.108/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 120(B) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 4, 25(1)(B) of Arms Act. 3. As per the case of prosecution, on 25.07.2020 at about 4:30 p.m, the appellant and others attacked on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8517 CRL.A No. 100656 of 2024 deceased Ramesh Naik, opposite to TV Sanatorium and brutally murdered him. Hence, the first informant lodged a complaint, which led to registration of FIR and initiation of investigation. 4. During the course of investigation, accused No.1 was arrested on 01.08.2020 and in turn, remanded to judicial custody and since then he is in the judicial custody. The appellant is arraigned as accused No.1 in the charge-sheet and his earlier bail application was rejected by the trial Court on 16.10.2024. Therefore, the appellant is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in judicial custody for more than 5 years; accused Nos.2 to 28 are already enlarged on bail and the bail application filed by the appellant was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.A.No.100223/2021 dated 21.09.2023 on the ground that CWs.1 and 12 were not examined. Now, CWs.1 and 12 have been as PWs.1 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8517 CRL.A No. 100656 of 2024 and 2 respectively. Hence, the question of tampering with the material witnesses would not arise. The appellant is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed to allow the appeal. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State contended that appellant is a person with criminal antecedents and if appellant-accused No.1 is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Perused the material available on record. 8. The records reveal that the appellant is in judicial custody in the present case from 01.08.2020. There is an allegation against appellant-accused No.1 that he assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons. Upon perusal of the entire charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer cited all 55 witnesses in the charge-sheet, and the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8517 CRL.A No. 100656 of 2024 trial Court examined only 6 witnesses and 49 witnesses were yet to be examined. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693. Paragraph No.19 of the said judgment reads as under: “19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.” 10. Whereas in the instant case, out of the 55 charge-sheet witnesses cited in the present case, till date, only 6 charge-sheet witnesses have been examined. However, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8517 CRL.A No. 100656 of 2024 Crl.A.No.100223/2021 has observed that there was a threat on the part of accused No.1 to CWs.1 and 12. Now, CWs.1 and 12 are examined as PWs.1 and 2 respectively. 11. From perusal of the testimony of PWs.1 and 2, they have supported the case of prosecution. Further, remaining material witnesses have to be examined. The fact that, the appellant has criminal antecedents, if he released on bail, he may commit similar offence. If appellant-accused No.1 is released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. Considering the nature of allegation made against the appellant-accused No.1, the position of the prosecution witnesses and other relevant aspects, it is necessary to reject the bail petition. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER Appeal is dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8517 CRL.A No. 100656 of 2024 However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial in accordance with the law, more particularly, Section 346 of BNSS, 2023 and shall fix the date for trial and it should be on day to day basis. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM/- CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40