Karnataka High Court
Ravi S/O Dundappa Hullannanavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8728
CRL.A No. 100311 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100311 OF 2025
(U/S 14 A(2) of SC and ST ACT)
BETWEEN:
1. RAVI S/O. DUNDAPPA HULLANNANAVAR,
AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BEVINAMATTI,
BAGALKOT TALUK
AND DISTRICT-587112.
2. DAREPPA NINGAPPA NILAPPA DADDI
DADDENNAV @ DAREPPA @ NILAPPA
@ NINGAPPA DADDI DADDENAVA,
AGE: 21 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S OCC: AGRICULTURE,
HARIHAR
Location: High R/O. BEVINAMATTI,
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
BAGALKOT TALUK AND DISTRICT-587112.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BAGALKOT RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8728
CRL.A No. 100311 of 2025
HC-KAR
DHARWAD BENCH.
2. LAXMI BAI NELAGI W/O. ASHOK,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: LABOR,
R/O. BEVINAMATTI,
BAGALKOT TALUK AND
DISTRICT-587112.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14
A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015 R/W
483 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
22.01.2025 PASSED BY THE IIND ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS, JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN SPL.C.NO.139/2022
AGAINST APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 4 WITH RESPECT
TO THE FIR IN CRIME NO.178/2022 BY THE BAGALKOT RURAL
POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 143, 147, 148, 363, 302, 201, 120(B), 109 R/W .149
OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2) (V) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT
ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8728
CRL.A No. 100311 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
Heard Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Smt. Kirtilata Pail, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State, and Sri.
Prashant S. Kadadevar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The appellants - accused Nos.2 and 4 have filed
this appeal challenging the rejection of their bail application
filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C.) by the learned II Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Bagalkote, in Special Case No.139/2022, dated
09.02.2023. Therefore, they have preferred this appeal.
3. The factual matrix leading to the prosecution's
case is as follows:
On 28.09.2022, at around 06:00 p.m., when the
complainant and his wife returned home, their daughter
Chaitra informed them that Rajeshwari had left the house,
claiming she was going to attend to nature's call, but did not
return. Despite searching for Rajeshwari and inquiring with
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8728
HC-KAR
their relatives, she could not be located. Consequently, a
missing complaint was lodged with the respondent - Police.
During the investigation, it was revealed that Rajeshwari was
in a relationship with Vishwanath, who belonged to the Hindu
Walmiki caste, this was not accepted by her father, accused
No.1. On the instigation of accused No.1, all the accused
traced Rajeshwari and kept her at the fruit shop of accused
No.7 near Shirur Agasi on the Bagalkot-Hunagud road. Based
on the voluntary statement of accused - Ravi, it was further
revealed that accused No.1 had conspired with the other
accused to kill both Rajeshwari and Vishwanath. As a result,
the accused, except Nos.1 and 3, called Vishwanath to
Naragund under the pretext of arranging his marriage with
Rajeshwari. On 30.09.2022, they picked up Vishwanath from
Naragund, assaulted both him and Rajeshwari, and
murdered them. Their bodies were later thrown into the
Krishna River between Alamatti and Hungund road. The
Investigating Officer has completed the investigation and
filed the charge sheet. In light of this, the appellants,
accused Nos.2 and 4, filed a bail petition, which was
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8728
HC-KAR
rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection of the bail petition, the
appellants have filed this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended
that this case is based primarily on circumstantial evidence.
The Trial Court has examined 48 out of the 59 witnesses,
with only two witnesses (CWs.58 and 59) yet to be
examined. Furthermore, witness CW13, who accompanied
the accused in a Tata Ace vehicle, did not support the
prosecution's case and turned hostile. It was also pointed out
that accused Nos.1 and 7 have already been granted bail.
Hence, the appellants are entitled to bail on the grounds of
parity. The appellants are also ready to comply with any
conditions imposed by the Court. Thus, the appellants sought
to allow the appeal.
5. The learned HCGP for respondent-State and the
learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently argued that
all the accused had conspired together to murder Rajeshwari
and Vishwanath. Accused Nos.2 and 4 are specifically alleged
to have assaulted the deceased with stones, and accused
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8728
HC-KAR
No.4 is accused of strangling Rajeshwari. Therefore,
individual overt acts have been attributed to these
appellants, and as such, they are not entitled to bail.
6. Perused the entire charge sheet. It is evident that
the complainant (accused No.1) belongs to the Hindu Kuruba
community, while Vishwanath is from the Hindu Walmiki
community. The complainant was aware of his daughter's
relationship with Vishwanath but disapproved of their
marriage. Rajeshwari, however, insisted on marrying
Vishwanath. On 27.09.2022, accused Nos.1, 3, and 4 went
to Mangalore and traced Rajeshwari, bringing her back to
keep her at the fruit shop of accused No.7 near Shirur Agasi
on the Bagalkot-Hunagud road. She remained there on
28.09.2022 and 29.09.2022. Subsequently, accused Nos.1 to
5 and juvenile in conflict with law, Beerappa conspired to
deceive Rajeshwari into believing they would arrange her
marriage to Vishwanath. They called Vishwanath to
Naragund, and they transported both Rajeshwari and
Vishwanath in a Tata Ace vehicle belonging to accused No.7.
On 30.09.2022, they picked up Vishwanath from Naragund
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8728
HC-KAR
and assaulted him. At this time, Rajeshwari, who was in the
Tata Ace vehicle, witnessed the assault. After questioning
the accused, she was deceived and told that her marriage
with Vishwanath would still take place. Later, accused Nos. 4
and 5 strangled Rajeshwari, killing her. When the group
found Vishwanath still alive, they caught hold of his hands
and legs, and accused No.5 assaulted his private parts with a
stone, causing his death. The bodies of both Rajeshwari and
Vishwanath were undressed and thrown into the Krishna
river near Alamatti and Hungund road.
7. CW13, who was examined as PW8, gave a
statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., confirming that
he witnessed the incident.
8. As per the Call Detail Record, it is evident that
accused Nos.1 to 7 were in frequent communication with
each other, both before and after the incident, which further
implicates accused Nos.2 and 4. Based on this prima facie
material, there is no merit in the appeal.
The appeal lacks merit and therefore dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8728
HC-KAR
Note:The observations above are made solely for the
purpose of disposing of the petition.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
Rsh /ct-an
List no.: 1 sl no.: 24
