Karnataka High Court
Shravankumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6928
CRL.A No. 200306 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200306 OF 2025 (U/S 14-A(2))
BETWEEN:
SHRAVANKUMAR
S/O. SAYABANNA YALAWAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YANKANCHIM, TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586128.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND V. PATTANSHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH,
SINDAGI POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed
by NIJAMUDDIN DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
JAMKHANDI R/BY ADDL. SPP KALABURAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
2. RAMESH S/O. SHEVU JADHAV,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. YALAGI TANDA, TQ. SHORAPUR,
DIST. YADGIRI-585220.
(DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6928
CRL.A No. 200306 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A
(2) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO I) THAT, THE HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 15.07.2025 PASSED IN SPL. CASE (SC/ST) NO.68/2024
PASSED BY II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA, II)THAT, FOR THE REASONS STATED
ABOVE AMONGST OTHERS, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT, THE
HON'BLE COURT BE PLEACED TO GRANT THE REGULAR BAIL
TO THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 IN SPL. CASE (SC/ST)
NO.68/2024 (SINDAGI PS CRIME NO.166/2024, DIST.
VIJAYAPURA), PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE VIJAYAPURA AND FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 397, 302, 201
R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) Captioned appeal is filed by accused No.2 under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act, seeking grant of regular bail in Special case (SC/ST) No.68/2024 arising out of Crime No.166/2024 of Sindagi Police Station, Dist. Vijayapura, pending on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions and Special Judge, Vijayapura and for the offences punishable under Sections 397, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6928 CRL.A No. 200306 of 2025 HC-KAR Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amended Act, 2015.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 29.02.2024, the accused persons, while proceeding to procure liquor near the bus stand, noticed the deceased Deepa @ Naresh, a Mangal Mukhi who was wearing gold ornaments. It is alleged that the accused hatched a plan to commit murder in order to rob the ornaments and, under the guise of consuming liquor, took the deceased to Yakanchi Government Farm. After making the deceased consume liquor, they allegedly murdered the deceased by sinking her in water and thereafter removed the gold ornaments. Though the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, based on the statements of CW-16 and CW-17,who claim to have seen the accused in the company of the deceased on 29.02.2024,the prosecution has filed the charge sheet. After a lapse of five months, and primarily on the basis of the confessional statement of the accused recorded in an unconnected case in Crime -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6928 CRL.A No. 200306 of 2025 HC-KAR No.83/2024, the petitioner has been arrested and is presently in judicial custody.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal, contends that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the alleged confessional statements made by the petitioner and the co-accused while they were apprehended in Crime No.83/2024. Except for this inadmissible confessional statement, there is no independent material to connect the petitioner with the present offence. It is further submitted that even in Crime No.83/2024, wherein the alleged confession regarding the present crime was recorded, the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by a Co- ordinate Bench in Crl.P. No.200518/2025. Therefore, the prosecution case being purely circumstantial, continued incarceration of the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law and violate the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6928 CRL.A No. 200306 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that CW-16 and CW-17 have categorically stated that the deceased was last seen in the company of the petitioner and the other accused, which prima facie establishes the petitioner's involvement. It is therefore contended that this is not a fit case for grant of bail and that the petitioner must face trial. Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal is sought.
5. On perusal of the charge-sheet records, it is evident that the prosecution case substantially rests on the confessional statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 and on circumstantial evidence founded on the "last seen"
theory. The truth and reliability of these allegations must be established by the prosecution in a full-fledged trial. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, and without delving into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Imposing stringent conditions would adequately safeguard the prosecution witnesses and -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6928 CRL.A No. 200306 of 2025 HC-KAR prevent prejudice to the investigation. Conversely, refusal of bail at this stage when the case rests on circumstantial evidence and confessional statements would result in continued incarceration in violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 21. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to bail, subject to conditions.
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 15.07.2025 passed in Spl. Case (SC/ST) No.68/2024 by the II Additional District and Sessions and Special Judge, Vijayapura, is hereby set aside.
iii) The appellant shall be enlarged on bail in Spl.
Case (SC/ST) No.68/2024 arising out of Crime No.166/2024 of Sindagi Police Station, District Vijayapura, for offences punishable under Sections 397, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6928 CRL.A No. 200306 of 2025 HC-KAR (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, subject to the following conditions:
a) The appellant shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
b) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted for valid reasons.
c) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly threaten, influence, or tamper with prosecution witnesses.
d) The appellant shall not involve herself in any offence of a similar nature in future.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4/CT:SI