Karnataka High Court
Ameer S/O Abdul Gorekhan vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230
CRL.A No. 100036 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100036 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. AMEER S/O. ABDUL GOREKHAN,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: GOTHE VILLAGE,
JAMAKHANDI TQ,
BAGALKOTE DIST: 587 101,
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY).
2. HARISH S/O. RAVASAB MOHITE,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KONNOLLI VILLAGE,
JAMAKHANDI TQ.,
BAGALKOTE DIST: 587 101,
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY).
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI J. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
(THROUGH SAVALGI P.S
Dharwad
REPRESENTED BY ITS
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD - 580 011.
2. LAXMAN S/O. SURESH HOSAMANI,
OCC: LABOURER, R/O: GOTHE VILLAGE,
JAMAKHANDI TQ,
BAGALKOTE DIST - 587 101,
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SAJID GOODWALA AND
SRI PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATES FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230
CRL.A No. 100036 of 2025
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A(2) OF
S.C./S.T. ACT, SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2025 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.122/2024 IN
CRIME NO. 103/2024 SAVALAGI P.S. AND ENLARGE THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO'S. 3 AND 4 ON BAIL PENDING ON TH FILE
OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BAGALKOTE,
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 115(2), 103(1),
352, 351(2), READ WITH 3(5) OF BNSS AND UNDER SECTIONS
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (P.O.A) AMENDMENT ACT 2015,
INSOFAR APPELLANTs ARE CONCERNED ONLY AND IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 praying
to set aside the order dated 06.01.2025 passed in Special
Case No.122/2024 by the learned II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, whereunder the bail
application of the appellants sought in respect of Crime
No.103/2024 of Savalagi Police Station registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 103(1), 353,
351(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nayaya
Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNS', for short)
and Sections 3(1)(r),(s) and 3(2)
(v) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as
'the SC & ST Act', for short) came to be rejected.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.
3. The case of the prosecution as stated in para 17
of the charge-sheet is that, deceased Prahalad was
residing alone and his wife-accused No.1 and their son
accused No.2 were residing separately, as Prahalad was
addicted to alcohol and he used to suspect the fidelity of
his wife-accused No.1-Jayashree. Accused Nos.1 and 2
were residing along with other two children of accused
No.2, separately, since one or two years in a rented
house. Prahalad was residing alone in a old house in the
town. The complainant is the brother of Prahalad and the
Prahalad was upset with the fact of his wife and children
residing separately and became more addicted to alcohol.
The complainant thought of bringing the wife and children
of the Prahalad and he had advised accused No.1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230
Jayashree, wife of the Prahalad, and there was no
settlement. That on 19.09.2024 at about 2:30 pm, the
complainant, Prahalad and CW-6 together went to the
house of accused No.1 and asked her to come along with
her children and she refused to join her husband and sent
them back. On the same day, at about 3:30 pm, the
Prahalad, complainant and CW-6 again along with the
elders in order to unite the Prahalad and accused and as
such when they were talking together, at that time
accused Nos.1 to 4 came and accused No.2 threatened the
Prahalad to kill him and held his shirt and assaulted him
with hands and other accused abused him in filthy
language. All the accused together assaulted the Prahalad
on his chest and stomach by hands and made him to fall
on the ground and kicked him. They pressed his neck with
an intention to kill him and when the complainant went to
rescue him, at that time, accused Nos.2 and 3 abused him
in filthy language and assaulted him with hands. At that
time, CWs.6 to 8 rescued Prahalad and accused persons
gave threat to them. Thereafter, Prahalad was taken to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230
the hospital and he died on the same day at 5:30 pm.
Charge-sheet has been filed against the appellants and
accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences. The
appellants are in judicial custody and they filed bail
application and the same came to be rejected by the
impugned order. The said order has been challenged by
the appellants in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants would
contend that, the alleged incident has taken place in a
sudden quarrel, there was no intention on the part of the
accused to kill the deceased, there is no preparation and
no weapon has been used to assault the deceased and the
allegation is of assault by hands and legs. He further
submits that cause of death, as noted in opinion given by
the Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination over
the dead body of the deceased, is 'cerebral hemorrhage'.
What caused cerebral hemorrhage has not been stated by
the Doctor. Only 3 injures are noted in the postmortem
report and out of them, two are contusions one on chest
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230
and the other on breast and there was swelling and
abrasion on parietal region. No specific overt act is
alleged against each of the accused. Therefore, at this
stage, it cannot be said who assaulted the deceased on
what part of his body. He submits that, there is no
allegation of abuse by the appellants taking the caste of
the deceased to attract the offence under Sections
3(1)(r),(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC and ST Act. The appellants
are students aged 19 years and if they are continued in
prison, it will affect their educational career. As charge-
sheet is filed, the appellants are not required for custodial
interrogation. Without considering these aspects, the
learned Special Judge has rejected the bail application of
the appellants. With these he prayed for allowing the
appeal and grant of bail to the appellants.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2
contend that the appellants/ accused Nos.3 and 4 kicked
the deceased on his chest and on his private part in the
day time at 3:00 pm. There are four accused and out of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230
them, complainant is also injured and he has sustained
simple injuries and if the appellants are granted bail, there
is a threat to the prosecution witnesses.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would
contend that the appellants kicked the deceased on his
chest and on the private part. CW.6 to 8 are the witnesses
to the alleged incident who has stated specifically the
assault on the deceased with hands and legs. The Doctor
who has conducted examination on the dead body of the
deceased has noted three injuries on the deceased and
opined that the death is due to 'cerebral hemorrhage'. The
charge sheet shows prima facie case against the accused
for the offences alleged against them. If the appellants are
granted bail, there is a threat to the prosecution
witnesses. With these, he prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court
has perused the impugned order and the charge sheet.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230
8. The appellants/ accused Nos.3 and 4 are the
friends of the accused No.2. Accused No.2 is a son of
deceased. Accused No.1 is the wife of the deceased.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 and other two children of accused
No.1 and deceased were residing separately since one or
two years as the deceased was addicted to alcohol and he
used to suspect the fidelity of his wife i.e., the accused
No.1. CW.1-complainant is the brother of the deceased.
Deceased was residing alone in a old house in the town
and accused Nos.1 and 2 were residing in a rented house
in the plot area. CW.1 along with the deceased went to the
house of accused Nos.1 and 2 and asked them to join the
deceased and they refused. On the same day, CW.1 and
deceased and other elders again secured accused Nos.1
and 2 for talks at that time, the alleged incident is stated
to have taken place. That the assault alleged against the
appellants/ accused Nos.3 and 4 is with hands and legs.
Considering the said fact, there is no preparation and no
weapon has been used by the appellants and others to
assault the deceased. The alleged incident has taken place
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230
in a sudden quarrel between the accused No.2 and
deceased. On perusal of the statement of eye-witness, no
specific individual overt act is alleged against the accused
persons. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said which of
the accused persons assaulted on which part of the body
of the deceased. More so, appellants are aged 19 years
and they are students. If the appellants are continued in
prison, it will affect their educational career. As the
chargesheet is filed, the appellants are not required for
custodial interrogation. The apprehension of the
prosecution that if the appellants are granted bail, they
will threaten the prosecution witnesses. The appellants
have made out grounds for setting aside the impugned
order and grant of bail. In the result the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 06.01.2025
passed in Spl.Case No.122/2024 by the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230
II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bagalkote, is set aside.
iii. The appellants/ accused Nos.3 and 4 are
granted bail in Crime No.103/2024 of
Savalagi Police Station pending in
Special Case No.122/2024 subject to the
following conditions:
a) The appellants shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of
the trial Court.
b) The appellants shall not threaten
the prosecution witnesses.
c) The appellants shall appear before
the trial Court on all dates of
hearing.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230
d) The appellants shall co-operate
with the trial Court in speedy
disposal of the matter.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
Kmv - upto para 4
PJ
