Karnataka High Court
Shravankumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6928
CRL.A No. 200306 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200306 OF 2025 (U/S 14-A(2))
BETWEEN:
SHRAVANKUMAR
S/O. SAYABANNA YALAWAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YANKANCHIM, TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586128.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND V. PATTANSHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH,
SINDAGI POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed
by NIJAMUDDIN DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
JAMKHANDI R/BY ADDL. SPP KALABURAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
2. RAMESH S/O. SHEVU JADHAV,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. YALAGI TANDA, TQ. SHORAPUR,
DIST. YADGIRI-585220.
(DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6928
CRL.A No. 200306 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A
(2) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO I) THAT, THE HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 15.07.2025 PASSED IN SPL. CASE (SC/ST) NO.68/2024
PASSED BY II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA, II)THAT, FOR THE REASONS STATED
ABOVE AMONGST OTHERS, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT, THE
HON'BLE COURT BE PLEACED TO GRANT THE REGULAR BAIL
TO THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 IN SPL. CASE (SC/ST)
NO.68/2024 (SINDAGI PS CRIME NO.166/2024, DIST.
VIJAYAPURA), PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE VIJAYAPURA AND FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 397, 302, 201
R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
Captioned appeal is filed by accused No.2 under
Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act, seeking grant of regular bail
in Special case (SC/ST) No.68/2024 arising out of Crime
No.166/2024 of Sindagi Police Station, Dist. Vijayapura,
pending on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions and
Special Judge, Vijayapura and for the offences punishable
under Sections 397, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6928
HC-KAR
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amended Act, 2015.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on
29.02.2024, the accused persons, while proceeding to
procure liquor near the bus stand, noticed the deceased
Deepa @ Naresh, a Mangal Mukhi who was wearing gold
ornaments. It is alleged that the accused hatched a plan to
commit murder in order to rob the ornaments and, under
the guise of consuming liquor, took the deceased to
Yakanchi Government Farm. After making the deceased
consume liquor, they allegedly murdered the deceased by
sinking her in water and thereafter removed the gold
ornaments. Though the FIR was initially registered against
unknown persons, based on the statements of CW-16 and
CW-17,who claim to have seen the accused in the
company of the deceased on 29.02.2024,the prosecution
has filed the charge sheet. After a lapse of five months,
and primarily on the basis of the confessional statement of
the accused recorded in an unconnected case in Crime
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6928
HC-KAR
No.83/2024, the petitioner has been arrested and is
presently in judicial custody.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating
the grounds urged in the appeal, contends that the
petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the
alleged confessional statements made by the petitioner
and the co-accused while they were apprehended in Crime
No.83/2024. Except for this inadmissible confessional
statement, there is no independent material to connect the
petitioner with the present offence. It is further submitted
that even in Crime No.83/2024, wherein the alleged
confession regarding the present crime was recorded, the
petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by a Co-
ordinate Bench in Crl.P. No.200518/2025. Therefore, the
prosecution case being purely circumstantial, continued
incarceration of the petitioner would amount to abuse of
process of law and violate the fundamental right to
personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6928
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader submits that CW-16 and CW-17 have categorically
stated that the deceased was last seen in the company of
the petitioner and the other accused, which prima facie
establishes the petitioner's involvement. It is therefore
contended that this is not a fit case for grant of bail and
that the petitioner must face trial. Accordingly, dismissal
of the appeal is sought.
5. On perusal of the charge-sheet records, it is
evident that the prosecution case substantially rests on
the confessional statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 and
on circumstantial evidence founded on the "last seen"
theory. The truth and reliability of these allegations must
be established by the prosecution in a full-fledged trial.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances,
and without delving into the merits of the case, this Court
is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for
grant of bail. Imposing stringent conditions would
adequately safeguard the prosecution witnesses and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6928
HC-KAR
prevent prejudice to the investigation. Conversely, refusal
of bail at this stage when the case rests on circumstantial
evidence and confessional statements would result in
continued incarceration in violation of the constitutional
mandate under Article 21. Hence, the petitioner is entitled
to bail, subject to conditions.
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 15.07.2025 passed in
Spl. Case (SC/ST) No.68/2024 by the II Additional District
and Sessions and Special Judge, Vijayapura, is hereby set
aside.
iii) The appellant shall be enlarged on bail in Spl.
Case (SC/ST) No.68/2024 arising out of Crime
No.166/2024 of Sindagi Police Station, District Vijayapura,
for offences punishable under Sections 397, 302, 201 read
with Section 34 of IPC, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6928
HC-KAR
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, subject
to the following conditions:
a) The appellant shall execute a personal bond
for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
Court.
b) The appellant shall appear before the Trial
Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted
for valid reasons.
c) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly
threaten, influence, or tamper with prosecution
witnesses.
d) The appellant shall not involve herself in any
offence of a similar nature in future.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4/CT:SI
