Karnataka High Court
Thulasiram vs State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924
CRL.A No. 200307 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.200307 OF 2025 (U/S 14 (A))
BETWEEN:
THULASIRAM S/O PANDIT HARIJAN,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF ARJANAL VILLAGE,
INDI, VIJAYAPURA-586112,
PRESENTLY R/A. GANESH NAGAR,
VIJAYAPURA-586109.
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. S. SHYAMSUNDAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI LAKSHMIKANTH G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
by RENUKA BY GANDHI CHOWK P.S., VIJAYAPURA,
Location: HIGH REP. BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH,
KALABURAGI-585103.
2. SRI PRAKASHA MELINKERI
S/O LAKSHMANA MELINAKERI,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/A SHAKTI NAGAR,
VIJAYAPURA-586103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924
CRL.A No. 200307 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A
(2) OF THE SC/ST (PA) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2025 IN CRL MISC NO.1252/2025
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA REJECTING THE BAIL
APPLICATION OF ACCUSED NO.1 AND ENLARGE THE
APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.122/2024
OF GANDHI CHOWK POLICE STATION, VIJAYAPURA FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 61(2), 189(2),
191(2), 191(3), 103 READ WITH SECTION 190 OF THE BNS,
2023 AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF THE SC/ST POA (AMENDMENT),
2015 WHICH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
VIJAYAPURA IN SPL CASE (SC/ST) NO.66/2024 ON SUCH
TERMS AND CONDITION.
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)
This appeal is filed by accused No.1 seeking grant of
bail under Section 14A(2) of the of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
in Special Case (SC/ST) No.66/2024, arising out of Crime
No.122/2024 registered by Gandhi Chowk Police Station,
Vijayapur, for the offences punishable under Sections
61(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 103 read with Section 190
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924
HC-KAR
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short, 'the SC/ST
(PA) Amendment Act, 2015), pending before the II
Additional District and Sessions & Special Judge,
Vijayapur.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on
08.08.2024, while the deceased Ravindra was proceeding
on his motorbike, the driver of an Innova car allegedly
drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the hind portion of the motorbike. As a
result, the deceased fell down and was dragged for some
distance. It is stated that three individuals witnessed the
incident, leading to registration of Crime No.161/2024.
3. On 12.08.2024, the informant lodged a second
information before the Gandhi Chowk Police Station,
Vijayapur against the present appellant/accused No.1 and
others alleging commission of the offence punishable
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924
HC-KAR
under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Based on this, Crime No.122/2024 came to be registered.
The Investigating Officer, relying on the further
statements of eyewitnesses cited as C.Ws.18 to 20 and on
the alleged confessional statement of the appellant,
apprehended the co-accused and has filed a charge sheet.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the Co-ordinate Bench has already
granted bail to accused Nos.2 to 6 against whom similar
allegations are made and who were admittedly the driver
and inmates of the offending car vide orders dated
18.03.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.200054/2025 and
20.08.2025 in Criminal Petition No.200128/2025. Inviting
attention to both the first FIR and the subsequent FIR
alleging murder, he submits that the appellant has been
implicated solely on the basis of hearsay statements
despite being admitted in the hospital on the date of the
alleged accident. He contends that, applying the principle
of parity, the appellant who was not present at the spot as
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924
HC-KAR
per the prosecution case is also entitled to bail, particularly
as he is in judicial custody since 12.08.2024. It is further
submitted that the appellant is willing to abide by any
stringent conditions, will not indulge in similar activities,
and will not tamper with the prosecution case.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader strongly opposes the petition, contending that the
appellant/accused No.1 has criminal antecedents and is a
prime suspect in the alleged murder of Ravindra. It is
submitted that this is not a fit case for grant of bail at this
stage, and the appellant ought to face trial as an
undertrial prisoner. It is further submitted that as many as
five criminal cases are pending against the appellant.
6. As per the prosecution itself, the appellant was
not travelling in the offending Innova that caused the
accident. The Co-ordinate Bench, while referring to the
charge sheet materials, has already observed that the test
identification parade conducted by the Investigating
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924
HC-KAR
Officer suffers from fundamental flaws. The records also
indicate that the co-accused were apprehended on the
basis of the appellant's alleged confessional statement.
Though the learned High Court Government Pleader
emphasizes that the appellant has antecedents, this
contention is met by the learned Senior Counsel by
pointing out that the deceased too had antecedents and
multiple cases registered against him.
7. Now that the charge sheet is filed, and in view
of the fact that the co-accused who are alleged to have
been directly involved in causing the death of the
deceased by projecting it as an accident have already been
enlarged on bail, the appellant cannot be treated
differently merely on the basis of allegations of animosity,
which are themselves reflected only in the second
complaint lodged by the informant.
8. The prosecution case rests entirely on
circumstantial evidence. The allegation of animosity
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924
HC-KAR
between the appellant and the deceased will have to be
proved during trial. When the Co-ordinate Bench has
already held that the test identification parade is
fundamentally flawed, the remaining allegation against the
appellant rests only on the informant's suspicion arising
out of previous scuffle between the appellant and the
deceased. These are matters for trial. In the light of the
materials placed on record, this Court is of the considered
view that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. If
stringent conditions are imposed, no prejudice will be
caused to the prosecution. This Court also finds it
appropriate to impose additional safeguards to ensure that
the appellant does not indulge in similar offences during
the pendency of trial.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924
HC-KAR
The impugned order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the
II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special
Judge, Vijayapur in Crl.Misc.No.1252/2025, insofar as it
rejects the bail application of the appellant/accused No.1,
is hereby set aside.
The appellant/accused No.1 is directed to be
enlarged on bail in Crime No.122/2024 of Gandhi Chowk
Police Station, Vijayapur, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 61(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3),
103 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015, pending before the II Additional
District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Vijayapur
in Special Case (SC/ST) No.66/2024, subject to the
following conditions:
a) The appellant shall execute a personal bond for
a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the
likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6924
HC-KAR
b) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court
on all hearing dates unless specifically
exempted for valid reasons.
c) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly
threaten, influence or tamper with the
prosecution witnesses.
d) In view of the submission by the learned High
Court Government Pleader regarding the
appellant's antecedents, it is further directed
that the appellant shall not commit any similar
offences pending trial and shall not intimidate
the complainant/C.W.1 or any other material
prosecution witnesses.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
RSP
CT:SI
