Karnataka High Court
Chidanand vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6581
CRL.A No. 200134 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200134 OF 2025 (U/S 14 (A))
BETWEEN:
CHIDANAND S/O SHAMBANNA TELI,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O KORAHALLI, TQ. ALMEL,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586202.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MOINAKHTAR NADAF, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE PSI, ALMEL PS, VIJAYAPUR,
REP. BY THE ADDL. S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
Digitally signed 2. SHEELA W/O PARASHURAM MYAKERI,
by RENUKA AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Location: HIGH R/O KORAHALLI, NOW AT NEAR AMBEDKAR CIRCLE,
COURT OF TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF
SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.04.2025 PASSED BY
THE II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, VIJAYAPUR IN
CRL. MISC.NO.502/2025 IN ALMEL POLICE STATION CR.
NO.24/2024, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
201, 302, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE
AND 3(1)(R), 3(2)(V-A) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT, 1989 BY IMPOSING ANY CONDITIONS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6581
CRL.A No. 200134 of 2025
HC-KAR
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) The captioned appeal is filed by accused No.4 seeking grant of regular bail in a Spl.Case SC/ST No.23/2024 (arising out of Crime No.24/2024 registered by Almel Police Station, Vijayapura District) pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302, 504 and 506 read with Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Smt. Sheela Myakeri, wife of the deceased Parashuram Myakeri, lodged a complaint alleging that the present appellant along with other accused persons brutally -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6581 CRL.A No. 200134 of 2025 HC-KAR assaulted her husband, resulting in his death. Based on the said complaint, a case came to be registered, and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against all the accused persons.
3. The present appeal is filed by accused No.4 seeking enlargement on bail. It is contended that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case due to political rivalry and personal enmity. The appellant submits that there are no specific allegations or overt-acts attributed to him and that the charge-sheet materials do not prima facie disclose any incriminating evidence connecting him with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the appellant has been in judicial custody since 29.02.2024, and in view of there being about fifty (50) witnesses cited in the charge sheet, continued incarceration would amount to violation of his fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6581 CRL.A No. 200134 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, drawing attention to the statements of two eyewitnesses recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and the statements of eight other eyewitnesses, contends that there are clear and consistent allegations against the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant snatched the sickle (koitha) from accused No.1, who had already assaulted the deceased, and thereafter inflicted a blow with the same weapon on the forehead, a vital part of the body which proved fatal. It is therefore submitted that the material on record discloses a direct and active participation of the appellant in the commission of the offence and that the gravity of the offence does not warrant grant of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. I have carefully perused the charge-sheet and the materials placed on record.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6581 CRL.A No. 200134 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. The appellant is charged for the offence of murder of Parashuram Myakeri. The charge-sheet material, including the statements of two eyewitnesses recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and statements of eight other eyewitnesses, consistently disclose that the appellant, arrayed as accused No.4, snatched the sickle from accused No.1 and assaulted the deceased on his forehead, resulting in his death. The post-mortem report reveals as many as sixteen (16) injuries on the body of the deceased, establishing the brutality of the assault.
7. In view of the serious and specific allegations against the appellant and the existence of prima facie incriminating material connecting him to the offence, this Court is of the opinion that the case does not merit grant of bail. The mere delay in the progress of the trial, by itself, cannot be a ground to enlarge the appellant on bail in a case involving a heinous offence of murder. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6581 CRL.A No. 200134 of 2025 HC-KAR Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT:SI