Karnataka High Court
Riyaz Ahmed S/O Anwarsab Dargad vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:337
CRL.A No. 100482 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100482 OF 2024 (U/S 14 A(2) of SC and ST ACT)
BETWEEN:
RIYAZ AHMED S/O. ANWARSAB DARGAD
AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. SOGIYVAR PLOT, AMARGOL,
HUBBALLI-582 208, TQ. HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH APMC NAVAAGAR P.S. HUBBALLI/
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
HUBBALLI-DHARWAD, REP. BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
2. SURESH S/O. GURAPPA LAMANI
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B R/O. BAIRAPUR-581118,
SHELAR
Location: HIGH
TQ. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI.
MOHANKUMAR COURT OF
B SHELAR KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENTS
DHARWAD
BENCH (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1;
Date: 2025.01.10
12:40:17 +0530 NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A(2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2024 PASSED BY II
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPL.JUDGE, DHARWAD IN
SPL.SC/ST NO.24/2024 AND GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 IN APMC NAVANAGAR P.S. HUBBALLI,
CR.NO.12/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:337
CRL.A No. 100482 of 2024
120B, 201, 203, 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND 3(2) (v) OF SC AND ST
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The petitioner, Accused No. 1, facing charges for offences
punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 203, and 302 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, has approached this Court under Section
14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeking
bail.
2. The prosecution alleges that Accused Nos. 1 and 2
were involved in an illicit relationship and conspired to murder the
husband of Accused No. 2 on the grounds that he was obstructing
their illegal relationship.
3. On January 10, 2024, at around 3:30 p.m., the
deceased, after consuming alcohol, went to the factory where
Accused No. 2 worked, intending to quarrel with her. Following the
quarrel, as the deceased was leaving the factory, Accused No. 2
informed Accused No. 1 and instigated him to murder her husband.
4. Subsequently, Accused No. 1 took the deceased on
his two-wheeler to the land of CW-17, where he allegedly stabbed
NC: 2025:KHC-D:337
the deceased in the neck with a knife, resulting in his death. He
then washed the knife to destroy evidence. Thereafter, Accused
No. 2 is said to have lodged a false report about her husband's
death.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the prosecution's case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence,
which must be proved during the trial. It was further contended that
the medical report indicated that the cause of death remains
undetermined, and initially, the deceased's death was treated as
unnatural. Therefore, the petitioner has established a prima facie
case for the grant of bail.
6. The learned Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No. 1 - State, opposed the bail application, arguing
that the prosecution has established the motive of Accused Nos. 1
and 2 to eliminate the deceased. It was submitted that the accused
confessed to committing the murder in their voluntary statements.
Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
7. Upon considering the submissions of both parties, the
following observations are made:
8. It is undisputed that there is no eyewitness to the
alleged incident, and the prosecution relies solely on circumstantial
evidence to implicate the petitioner. The motive attributed to the
accused is based on the alleged illicit relationship between
Accused Nos. 1 and 2, and the claim that the deceased was
obstructing their relationship.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:337
9. The case of the prosecution revolves entirely around
circumstantial evidence, which will have to be established during
the trial. Moreover, Accused No. 2, who is alleged to have
instigated the murder, has already been granted bail.
10. Considering these circumstances, the petitioner has
made out a prima facie case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the
petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The appeal stands allowed.
ii) The appellant/accused No.1 is enlarged on bail in
Spl.SC/ST No.24/2024 pending on the file of learned II Addl.
District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad for the offences punishable
under Sections 120B, 201, 203 and 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, subject to following conditions:
a) The appellant/accused No.1 shall furnish indemnity
bond for a sum of Rs.One lakh with one surety for
the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
Court.
b) He shall appear before the Court as and when
required.
c) He shall not threaten or allure the prosecution
witnesses in whatsoever manner.
d) He shall not get involved in similar offences.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:337
e) He shall not leave the territorial limits of the Trial Court
without prior permission of the Trial Court.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
BKM
Ct:vh
