Karnataka High Court
Thulasiram vs State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924
CRL.A No. 200307 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.200307 OF 2025 (U/S 14 (A))
BETWEEN:
THULASIRAM S/O PANDIT HARIJAN,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF ARJANAL VILLAGE,
INDI, VIJAYAPURA-586112,
PRESENTLY R/A. GANESH NAGAR,
VIJAYAPURA-586109.
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. S. SHYAMSUNDAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI LAKSHMIKANTH G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
by RENUKA BY GANDHI CHOWK P.S., VIJAYAPURA,
Location: HIGH REP. BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH,
KALABURAGI-585103.
2. SRI PRAKASHA MELINKERI
S/O LAKSHMANA MELINAKERI,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/A SHAKTI NAGAR,
VIJAYAPURA-586103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924
CRL.A No. 200307 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A
(2) OF THE SC/ST (PA) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2025 IN CRL MISC NO.1252/2025
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA REJECTING THE BAIL
APPLICATION OF ACCUSED NO.1 AND ENLARGE THE
APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.122/2024
OF GANDHI CHOWK POLICE STATION, VIJAYAPURA FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 61(2), 189(2),
191(2), 191(3), 103 READ WITH SECTION 190 OF THE BNS,
2023 AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF THE SC/ST POA (AMENDMENT),
2015 WHICH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
VIJAYAPURA IN SPL CASE (SC/ST) NO.66/2024 ON SUCH
TERMS AND CONDITION.
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) This appeal is filed by accused No.1 seeking grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of the of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in Special Case (SC/ST) No.66/2024, arising out of Crime No.122/2024 registered by Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Vijayapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 103 read with Section 190 -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924 CRL.A No. 200307 of 2025 HC-KAR of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short, 'the SC/ST (PA) Amendment Act, 2015), pending before the II Additional District and Sessions & Special Judge, Vijayapur.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 08.08.2024, while the deceased Ravindra was proceeding on his motorbike, the driver of an Innova car allegedly drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the hind portion of the motorbike. As a result, the deceased fell down and was dragged for some distance. It is stated that three individuals witnessed the incident, leading to registration of Crime No.161/2024.
3. On 12.08.2024, the informant lodged a second information before the Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Vijayapur against the present appellant/accused No.1 and others alleging commission of the offence punishable -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924 CRL.A No. 200307 of 2025 HC-KAR under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Based on this, Crime No.122/2024 came to be registered. The Investigating Officer, relying on the further statements of eyewitnesses cited as C.Ws.18 to 20 and on the alleged confessional statement of the appellant, apprehended the co-accused and has filed a charge sheet.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Co-ordinate Bench has already granted bail to accused Nos.2 to 6 against whom similar allegations are made and who were admittedly the driver and inmates of the offending car vide orders dated 18.03.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.200054/2025 and 20.08.2025 in Criminal Petition No.200128/2025. Inviting attention to both the first FIR and the subsequent FIR alleging murder, he submits that the appellant has been implicated solely on the basis of hearsay statements despite being admitted in the hospital on the date of the alleged accident. He contends that, applying the principle of parity, the appellant who was not present at the spot as -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924 CRL.A No. 200307 of 2025 HC-KAR per the prosecution case is also entitled to bail, particularly as he is in judicial custody since 12.08.2024. It is further submitted that the appellant is willing to abide by any stringent conditions, will not indulge in similar activities, and will not tamper with the prosecution case.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader strongly opposes the petition, contending that the appellant/accused No.1 has criminal antecedents and is a prime suspect in the alleged murder of Ravindra. It is submitted that this is not a fit case for grant of bail at this stage, and the appellant ought to face trial as an undertrial prisoner. It is further submitted that as many as five criminal cases are pending against the appellant.
6. As per the prosecution itself, the appellant was not travelling in the offending Innova that caused the accident. The Co-ordinate Bench, while referring to the charge sheet materials, has already observed that the test identification parade conducted by the Investigating -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924 CRL.A No. 200307 of 2025 HC-KAR Officer suffers from fundamental flaws. The records also indicate that the co-accused were apprehended on the basis of the appellant's alleged confessional statement. Though the learned High Court Government Pleader emphasizes that the appellant has antecedents, this contention is met by the learned Senior Counsel by pointing out that the deceased too had antecedents and multiple cases registered against him.
7. Now that the charge sheet is filed, and in view of the fact that the co-accused who are alleged to have been directly involved in causing the death of the deceased by projecting it as an accident have already been enlarged on bail, the appellant cannot be treated differently merely on the basis of allegations of animosity, which are themselves reflected only in the second complaint lodged by the informant.
8. The prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The allegation of animosity -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924 CRL.A No. 200307 of 2025 HC-KAR between the appellant and the deceased will have to be proved during trial. When the Co-ordinate Bench has already held that the test identification parade is fundamentally flawed, the remaining allegation against the appellant rests only on the informant's suspicion arising out of previous scuffle between the appellant and the deceased. These are matters for trial. In the light of the materials placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. If stringent conditions are imposed, no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution. This Court also finds it appropriate to impose additional safeguards to ensure that the appellant does not indulge in similar offences during the pendency of trial.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is passed:
ORDER The Criminal Appeal is allowed.-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924 CRL.A No. 200307 of 2025 HC-KAR The impugned order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Vijayapur in Crl.Misc.No.1252/2025, insofar as it rejects the bail application of the appellant/accused No.1, is hereby set aside.
The appellant/accused No.1 is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.122/2024 of Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Vijayapur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 103 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Vijayapur in Special Case (SC/ST) No.66/2024, subject to the following conditions:
a) The appellant shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924 CRL.A No. 200307 of 2025 HC-KAR
b) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates unless specifically exempted for valid reasons.
c) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly threaten, influence or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
d) In view of the submission by the learned High Court Government Pleader regarding the appellant's antecedents, it is further directed that the appellant shall not commit any similar offences pending trial and shall not intimidate the complainant/C.W.1 or any other material prosecution witnesses.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT:SI