Karnataka High Court

Smt. Rabiya vs State Of Karnataka on 20 November, 2025

                            -1-
                                      CRL.A No. 830 of 2025


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
      DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                          BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.830 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SMT. RABIYA,
W/O.KAISER PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/A. HUSKUR GRAMA,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH
BENGALURU-562162

PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
NADUVANAHALLI,
SOMANAHALLI HOBLI,
GUDIBANDE TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
PIN.562101
                                               ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. RANGANATH REDDY, ADV.)

AND:

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY SHO, MADANAYAKANAHALLI PS,
      BANGALORE -560001
      REPRESENTED BY
      STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
      BANGALORE-560001

2.    MR. MANJUNATH REDDY.
      S/O. LATE SHIVARAMA REDDY.
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
      R/A. HIRENAGAVALLI VILLAGE,
      CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK.
                               -2-
                                        CRL.A No. 830 of 2025


    CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
    PIN.562104
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1,
 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)

     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER NO.1/ACCUSED NO.2
ON    BAIL   WITH    RESPECT    TO    IN   CR.NO.99/2024
(SPL.C.NO.336/2024) OF KANAKAPURA RURAL P.S., AT
KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 364,302,120(B),109,201,204 R/W 34 OF IPC, U/S
3(2)(V) OF SC/ST ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE II
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT    ON   14.11.2025  AND  COMING   ON   FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                       CAV JUDGMENT

Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order

dated 5th November 2024 passed in Criminal Misc. No.2024 of

2024 by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge and Special

Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (for short "the trial

Court").

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on the

basis of complaint filed by Manjunath Reddy, Nelamangala Sub-

Division, Madanayakanahalli, Police registered case in Crime

No.99 of 2024 for offence under sections 120B, 364, 302, 201

read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under section

3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On behalf of the accused,

application was filed under section 439 of Code of Criminal

Procedure seeking regular bail. The same came to be rejected

by the trial court by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by

the rejection of bail application, appellant has preferred this

appeal.

3. Sri Ranganath Reddy, learned Counsel appearing

for the appellant would submit that the appellant is absolutely

innocent of the alleged offences and she has not committed any

offence. The appellant has got valid, good and tenable defence

on her behalf. He would submit that the appellant had no

knowledge, reasonable belief nor apprehension of the alleged

offences, but she has been falsely implicated in the above case

at the instance of the complainant. There is no prime face case

made out against the appellant and it is only a fictitious story of

the complainant just to make out a semblance of offence

against the innocent appellant. Learned Counsel would further

submit that it is a true fact that there was dispute between the

deceased and accused No.1, who attempted to pacify the issue

several times, but on the date of incident, the hot exchange of

words between the accused No.1 and deceased went out of

control, and they fought with each other and consequently, the

deceased might have succumbed to injuries. The present

appellant is in no way concerned or responsible for the alleged

incident. Respondent police, without any proper investigation,

have implicated the name of the appellant. The only allegation

against this appellant is that she being the wife of accused

No.2, alleged to have called the deceased in the name of

"Deepa", as his ex-lover and made him to arrive at the spot.

Except said allegation, there is no other overt act attributed to

the present appellant. Moreover, she was not at all aware of

the murder plan of the co-accused. She merely called the

deceased in the name of "Deepa" as per the instructions of her

husband accused No.2. Hence, there is no participation of the

present appellant in the death of the deceased. The appellant

and the deceased are absolutely strangers to each other and

hence there is no ill-will or motive to the appellant to commit

such offence as alleged by complainant. The appellant was not

aware of the commission of offence by other accused till her

arrest, and she came to know about the alleged commission of

offence only when the police narrated about the case. Till then

she was in dark about the incident. He would submit that the

learned Sessions Judge has already granted bail to the accused

No.4, and on the basis of principle of parity, the present

appellant is also entitled for bail. The learned Counsel would

submit that the appellant is ready and willing to abide by any

terms and conditions that will be imposed by this court. On all

these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.

4. On the other hand, Sri B Lakshman, learned High

Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State,

would submit that there are prima facie materials to constitute

the offence against this appellant. The trial court has properly

appreciated the material on record and has dismissed the bail

application of the present appellant. Absolutely there are no

grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the

trial court. On all these grounds he sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

5. I have examined the materials placed before me.

On the basis of complaint filed by Manjunath Reddy,

Madanayakanahalli Police have registered a case against the

accused in Crime No.99 of 2024 for the offence punishable

under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. During the course of

investigation, the investigating officer arrested the accused.

After investigation, investigating officer has submitted charge-

sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 304, 302, 120 B, 109, 201, 204, read with section 34

of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA)

Act, 1989. Perusal of charge-sheet, statement of witnesses,

inquest panchanama, seizure panchanama, spot panchanama,

and the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating

officer, and the Spot Mahazar as to the conspiracy of these

accused on 08th February 2024, reveals that there are prima

facie materials to attract the commission of alleged offences

against the present appellant. The offence alleged is heinous in

nature and the same is punishable with death or imprisonment

for life. At this stage, if the accused is released on bail, there is

possibility of tampering or threatening the prosecution

witnesses. It will affect the society at large. With regard to

release of accused No.4 on bail by the trial Court is concerned,

the same could not be a valid ground for granting bail to the

present appellant on the principle of parity. The trial Court has

observed the same in the impugned order. The trial court has

clearly observed that the role of the petitioner is entirely

different from the role of accused No.4. The appellant took

active part in the commission of offence and was present at the

scene of offence. Further, the trial Court has observed that

there is specific overt act committed by the present appellant

which led to the commission of offence in this case. At

paragraph 12 of the judgment, the trial court has observed as

under:

"12. The counsel for the accused persons has submitted that since accused No.4 has already released on bail in Crl.Misc.No.736/2024, they are also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. However, the role of present petitioners is entirely different from the role of accused No.4 in this case. While, the accused No.4 is mainly accused of abetting the other accused persons to commit the murder of deceased Srinivas, the present petitioners took active part in the commission of the offence and were present at the scene of offence. Moreover, there is specific overt act committed by the present petitioners which led to the commission of the offence in this case. The present petitioner No.1 has assaulted deceased Srinivas with knife on the vital part of body which led to the death of deceased Srinivas, while petitioner No.2 enticed the deceased through phone to come over the scene of offence. Infact, the bail application of the accused NO. 1 who was present at the scene of offence along with petitioners and actively participated in the crime along with the present petitioners, is rejected by this court in Crl.Misc.1626/2024 on 20.8.2024. Hence, the present petitioners cannot claim bail on the ground of parity."

6. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any error or

illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: