- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2616 CRL.A No. 200060 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF MAY , 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRL.A NO 200060 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A)) BETWEEN SRI GANGADHAR S/O DASHARATH KSHATRI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC DRIVER R/O SHIVAPUR K D TQ.INDI, DIST.VIJAYAPUR ...APPELLANT (BY SRI S S MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI INDI RURAL POLICE STATION, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERALS OFFICE HIGH COURT BUILDING, KALABURAGI 2 . SHRIDEVI W/O RAYAPPA HONAKERI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, ALAKUNTE NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR - 586101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/SEC. 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2025 Digitally signed by NARAYANA UMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2616 CRL.A No. 200060 of 2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE / SPECIAL JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR IN CRIMINAL MISC.NO. 1930/2024 AND ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN INDI RURAL POLICE STATION, CRIME NO. 231/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 61(2), 103(1), 238 R/W SECTION 3(5) OF BNS 2023 AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 18.03.2025, AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV JUDGEMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.4 seeking to set aside the order dated 01.02.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1930/2024 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions/Special Judge, Vijayapur and to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.231/2024 registered by Indi Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 103(1), 238 r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Factual matrix of the case is as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2616 CRL.A No. 200060 of 2025 2. It is the case of the prosecution that respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint stating that the deceased Sharanappa had married Smt.Jayashree, who is a resident of Bengaluru. Subsequently, there was a difference of opinion between them. Therefore, the marriage was broken. Later, the said Sharanappa married Smt.Kavitha. She is a resident of Gadag. They had two children from the wedlock. Even the said Kavitha had also left the company of Sharanappa and started residing with her parents at Gadag. 3. The said Sharanappa after attaining the superannuation from the service, started living at Lalsangi village in the garden land bearing Sy.No.368. 4. It is stated that, on 14.10.2024, Sri.Vijayakumar Malakappa Mandoli informed respondent No.2 that the said Sharanappa was not seen since 12.10.2024 and his mobile was switched off. The respondent No.2 had tried to call the said Sharanappa, however, she did not get connected to his mobile phone. Therefore, she called Shivalingappa Malakappa Kallur and enquired the whereabouts of Sharanappa. Thereafter, a missing complaint came to be registered by respondent No.2 on 15.10.2024. After registering the case, she was informed that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2616 CRL.A No. 200060 of 2025 an unidentified dead body was found within the jurisdiction of Babaleshwar Police Station. Therefore, she went there and identified the dead body of her brother. Based on the identification of the said dead body, she lodged one more complaint suspecting accused No.1 and others. The respondent-police after conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet by citing four persons as accused in the said case. 5. Heard Sri.S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Jamadar, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State and Sri.Shivanand V.Pattanashetti, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The appellant is arraigned as accused No.4 and the overt-act of the appellant has not been stated in the charge sheet. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 4 in order to commit the murder of the deceased took the car and said car had been driven by accused No.4. After committing the murder of the deceased, accused No.4 who is the appellant - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2616 CRL.A No. 200060 of 2025 herein stated to have driven the car and also disposed of the said dead body and causing disappearance of the evidence. 7. It is further submitted that the said allegations are baseless and bald, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. The appellant is aged about 23 years and working as a driver and resident of Shivapur K.D., Indi Taluk. He will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently submitted that the overt-act against the appellant has been elaborately discussed in the charge sheet. He has been arraigned as accused No.4. As per the averments of the charge sheet, accused No.4 was driving the said vehicle and other accused have killed the deceased. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for bail. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Similarly, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the incident had taken place on account of that the victim belongs to schedule caste. The allegations against accused No.4 is that knowingly he also involved in committing - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2616 CRL.A No. 200060 of 2025 the murder of the deceased. Since there are serious allegations made against the appellant, it is not appropriate to grant relief. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the charge sheet that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. As per the said averments, the appellant was driving the car and the other accused have killed the deceased. The said fact known to the respondent – police only on the basis of voluntary statements of other accused. 11. There might be materials against the appellant, however, said materials are not sufficient to deny the bail since the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is needless to say that when the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has to be considered. 12. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2616 CRL.A No. 200060 of 2025 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The order dated 01.02.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1930/2024 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions/Special Judge, Vijayapur is set aside. iii) The appellant / accused No.4 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.231/2024 of respondent - police, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions: a) The appellant shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. b) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE TMP/UN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1