[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Hanumantharaya Hadari vs State Of Karnataka on 17 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7848
CRL.A No. 200359 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200359 OF 2025 (U/S 14 (A))
BETWEEN
HANUMANTHARAYA HADARI S/O SHIVANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: COOLI,
RESIDENT OF RODAGI, TQ. INDI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KULKARNI SHRINATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INDI RURAL POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI-585103.
2. SMT. SREEDEVI HONAKERI W/O RAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
Digitally signed RESIDENT OF ALAKUNTE NAGAR,
by CHAITHRA A
Location: HIGH NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE, VIJAYAPURA.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A(2) OF
SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
03.09.2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA IN SPECIAL CASE
(SC/ST) NO.4/2025, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND FURTHER
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME
NO.231/2024 REGISTERED BY INDI RURAL POLICE STATION FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 61(2),
103(1), AND 238 READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BNS 2023 AND
SECTION 3 (2) (V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7848
CRL.A No. 200359 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
The captioned appeal is filed by accused No.3 under
Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeking grant of
regular bail in Crime No.231/2024 registered by Indi Rural
Police Station, Vijayapura District, pending on the file of II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, for the
offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 103(1), 238 read
with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the present
appellant, in concert with the other co-accused, is alleged to
have entered into a criminal conspiracy to do away with the
deceased-Sharanappa. It is the specific case of the
prosecution that on 08.10.2024, at about 10.00 a.m.,
accused No.1, under the guise of calling the deceased for a
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7848
HC-KAR
meeting, lured him to the place of occurrence by making use
of the mobile phone belonging to accused No.2. It is further
alleged that as part of the preparation for committing the
offence, the present appellant/accused No.3 along with the
other co-accused purchased two ropes from a nearby shop.
3. The prosecution further alleges that thereafter the
deceased arrived at the spot in his car, wherein accused
No.4 drove the vehicle, with the deceased seated in the front
passenger seat. At that juncture, accused No.1 is alleged to
have placed a rope around the neck of the deceased, and the
present appellant/accused No.3 is alleged to have actively
participated by pulling the rope tightly, while accused No.2
gagged the mouth of the deceased, thereby preventing him
from raising any alarm. On account of the collective overt
acts attributed to the accused persons, the deceased is
stated to have succumbed to death due to asphyxiation.
4. Based on the complaint lodged by the sister of the
deceased, the jurisdictional police registered a criminal case,
conducted a detailed investigation, and have now filed a
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7848
HC-KAR
charge-sheet against the present appellant and the other
accused persons for the offences alleged.
5. Before the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants could advance his submissions on merits, the
learned High Court Government Pleader brought to the
notice of this Court that the bail application filed by accused
No.1 has already been rejected by this Court in Criminal
Petition No.201756/2025. Placing reliance on the said order,
the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/complainant as well as the learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1, contended in
unison that the overt acts attributed to accused No.1 and the
present appellant/accused No.3 stand on the same footing. It
is submitted that both accused No.1 and the present
appellant are specifically alleged to have placed and
tightened the rope around the neck of the deceased and
jointly pulled the same, which directly resulted in the
homicidal death of the deceased.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7848
HC-KAR
6. It is further argued that when this Court, on an
earlier occasion, having regard to identical allegations and
the nature of overt acts, has declined to grant bail to
accused No.1, no contra or divergent view can be taken in
the case of the present appellant.
7. The charge-sheet materials, according to the learned
counsel, prima facie lend credence to the prosecution version
with regard to the motive, preparation, and active
participation of the present appellant in the commission of
the offence. In that view of the matter, the contention urged
on behalf of the appellant that he is in no manner related to
the deceased and is falsely implicated, cannot be gone into
at this stage. The extent of his involvement and the veracity
of the overt acts attributed to him are matters that
necessarily fall within the domain of a full-fledged trial.
8. Having regard to the seriousness of the offence, the
specific role attributed to the present appellant, and the fact
that this Court has already rejected the bail petition filed by
accused No.1 on identical allegations, this Court finds that no
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7848
HC-KAR
special or exceptional circumstances are made out so as to
enlarge the present appellant on bail.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
The Registry is directed to reflect the name of
Sri Shivanand V. Pattanshetti as the counsel appearing for
the complainant. He is permitted to file his vakalatnama
within a period of two weeks.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
CT:SI
