Karnataka High Court
Sri Gangadhar vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 May, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2616
CRL.A No. 200060 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF MAY , 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRL.A NO 200060 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A))
BETWEEN
SRI GANGADHAR
S/O DASHARATH KSHATRI
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC DRIVER
R/O SHIVAPUR K D
TQ.INDI, DIST.VIJAYAPUR ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S S MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PSI INDI RURAL POLICE STATION,
REP BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed by ADVOCATE GENERALS OFFICE
NARAYANA UMA HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Location: High Court KALABURAGI
of Karnataka
2 . SHRIDEVI W/O RAYAPPA HONAKERI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O NEAR GANESH TEMPLE,
ALAKUNTE NAGAR,
VIJAYAPUR - 586101 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/SEC. 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (PA)
ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2025
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2616
CRL.A No. 200060 of 2025
PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE /
SPECIAL JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR IN CRIMINAL MISC.NO.
1930/2024 AND ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN INDI RURAL POLICE
STATION, CRIME NO. 231/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 61(2), 103(1), 238
R/W SECTION 3(5) OF BNS 2023 AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 18.03.2025, AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CAV JUDGEMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.4
seeking to set aside the order dated 01.02.2025 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.1930/2024 by the learned II Additional District and
Sessions/Special Judge, Vijayapur and to enlarge him on bail in
Crime No.231/2024 registered by Indi Rural Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 103(1), 238 r/w
Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Factual matrix of the case is as under:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2616
CRL.A No. 200060 of 2025
2. It is the case of the prosecution that respondent
No.2 has lodged a complaint stating that the deceased
Sharanappa had married Smt.Jayashree, who is a resident of
Bengaluru. Subsequently, there was a difference of opinion
between them. Therefore, the marriage was broken. Later,
the said Sharanappa married Smt.Kavitha. She is a resident of
Gadag. They had two children from the wedlock. Even the
said Kavitha had also left the company of Sharanappa and
started residing with her parents at Gadag.
3. The said Sharanappa after attaining the
superannuation from the service, started living at Lalsangi
village in the garden land bearing Sy.No.368.
4. It is stated that, on 14.10.2024, Sri.Vijayakumar
Malakappa Mandoli informed respondent No.2 that the said
Sharanappa was not seen since 12.10.2024 and his mobile was
switched off. The respondent No.2 had tried to call the said
Sharanappa, however, she did not get connected to his mobile
phone. Therefore, she called Shivalingappa Malakappa Kallur
and enquired the whereabouts of Sharanappa. Thereafter, a
missing complaint came to be registered by respondent No.2 on
15.10.2024. After registering the case, she was informed that
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2616
CRL.A No. 200060 of 2025
an unidentified dead body was found within the jurisdiction of
Babaleshwar Police Station. Therefore, she went there and
identified the dead body of her brother. Based on the
identification of the said dead body, she lodged one more
complaint suspecting accused No.1 and others. The
respondent-police after conducting the investigation, submitted
the charge sheet by citing four persons as accused in the said
case.
5. Heard Sri.S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri.Jamadar, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 -
State and Sri.Shivanand V.Pattanashetti, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the entire case is based on circumstantial
evidence. The appellant is arraigned as accused No.4 and the
overt-act of the appellant has not been stated in the charge
sheet. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 4 in order to
commit the murder of the deceased took the car and said car
had been driven by accused No.4. After committing the
murder of the deceased, accused No.4 who is the appellant
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2616
CRL.A No. 200060 of 2025
herein stated to have driven the car and also disposed of the
said dead body and causing disappearance of the evidence.
7. It is further submitted that the said allegations are
baseless and bald, the appellant has been falsely implicated in
the case. The appellant is aged about 23 years and working as
a driver and resident of Shivapur K.D., Indi Taluk. He will abide
the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release
on bail. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the
appellant prays to allow the appeal.
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
vehemently submitted that the overt-act against the appellant
has been elaborately discussed in the charge sheet. He has
been arraigned as accused No.4. As per the averments of the
charge sheet, accused No.4 was driving the said vehicle and
other accused have killed the deceased. Therefore, the
appellant is not entitled for bail. Making such submissions, he
prays to dismiss the appeal.
9. Similarly, the learned counsel for respondent No.2
submitted that the incident had taken place on account of that
the victim belongs to schedule caste. The allegations against
accused No.4 is that knowingly he also involved in committing
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2616
CRL.A No. 200060 of 2025
the murder of the deceased. Since there are serious
allegations made against the appellant, it is not appropriate to
grant relief. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the
appeal.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, it
appears from the charge sheet that the entire case is based on
circumstantial evidence. As per the said averments, the
appellant was driving the car and the other accused have killed
the deceased. The said fact known to the respondent - police
only on the basis of voluntary statements of other accused.
11. There might be materials against the appellant,
however, said materials are not sufficient to deny the bail since
the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is
needless to say that when the case is based on circumstantial
evidence, the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India has to be considered.
12. In the light of the observations made above, I
proceed to pass the following:
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2616
CRL.A No. 200060 of 2025
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The order dated 01.02.2025 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.1930/2024 by the learned II
Additional District and Sessions/Special
Judge, Vijayapur is set aside.
iii) The appellant / accused No.4 is ordered to
be enlarged on bail in Crime No.231/2024 of
respondent - police, on executing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for
the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court, subject to the following conditions:
a) The appellant shall not threaten or
tamper the prosecution witnesses.
b) The appellant shall appear before the
Trial Court on all hearing dates.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
TMP/UN
