Karnataka High Court
Chidanand vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6581
CRL.A No. 200134 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200134 OF 2025 (U/S 14 (A))
BETWEEN:
CHIDANAND S/O SHAMBANNA TELI,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O KORAHALLI, TQ. ALMEL,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586202.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MOINAKHTAR NADAF, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE PSI, ALMEL PS, VIJAYAPUR,
REP. BY THE ADDL. S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
Digitally signed 2. SHEELA W/O PARASHURAM MYAKERI,
by RENUKA AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Location: HIGH R/O KORAHALLI, NOW AT NEAR AMBEDKAR CIRCLE,
COURT OF TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF
SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.04.2025 PASSED BY
THE II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, VIJAYAPUR IN
CRL. MISC.NO.502/2025 IN ALMEL POLICE STATION CR.
NO.24/2024, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
201, 302, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE
AND 3(1)(R), 3(2)(V-A) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT, 1989 BY IMPOSING ANY CONDITIONS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6581
CRL.A No. 200134 of 2025
HC-KAR
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)
The captioned appeal is filed by accused No.4
seeking grant of regular bail in a Spl.Case SC/ST
No.23/2024 (arising out of Crime No.24/2024 registered
by Almel Police Station, Vijayapura District) pending on
the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under Sections
201, 302, 504 and 506 read with Section 304 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v-a) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one
Smt. Sheela Myakeri, wife of the deceased Parashuram
Myakeri, lodged a complaint alleging that the present
appellant along with other accused persons brutally
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6581
HC-KAR
assaulted her husband, resulting in his death. Based on
the said complaint, a case came to be registered, and after
completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid
the charge sheet against all the accused persons.
3. The present appeal is filed by accused No.4
seeking enlargement on bail. It is contended that the
appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
case due to political rivalry and personal enmity. The
appellant submits that there are no specific allegations or
overt-acts attributed to him and that the charge-sheet
materials do not prima facie disclose any incriminating
evidence connecting him with the alleged offence. It is
further submitted that the appellant has been in judicial
custody since 29.02.2024, and in view of there being
about fifty (50) witnesses cited in the charge sheet,
continued incarceration would amount to violation of his
fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6581
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader, drawing attention to the statements of two
eyewitnesses recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and
the statements of eight other eyewitnesses, contends that
there are clear and consistent allegations against the
appellant. It is alleged that the appellant snatched the
sickle (koitha) from accused No.1, who had already
assaulted the deceased, and thereafter inflicted a blow
with the same weapon on the forehead, a vital part of the
body which proved fatal. It is therefore submitted that the
material on record discloses a direct and active
participation of the appellant in the commission of the
offence and that the gravity of the offence does not
warrant grant of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent-State. I have carefully
perused the charge-sheet and the materials placed on
record.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6581
HC-KAR
6. The appellant is charged for the offence of
murder of Parashuram Myakeri. The charge-sheet
material, including the statements of two eyewitnesses
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and statements of
eight other eyewitnesses, consistently disclose that the
appellant, arrayed as accused No.4, snatched the sickle
from accused No.1 and assaulted the deceased on his
forehead, resulting in his death. The post-mortem report
reveals as many as sixteen (16) injuries on the body of
the deceased, establishing the brutality of the assault.
7. In view of the serious and specific allegations
against the appellant and the existence of prima facie
incriminating material connecting him to the offence, this
Court is of the opinion that the case does not merit grant
of bail. The mere delay in the progress of the trial, by
itself, cannot be a ground to enlarge the appellant on bail
in a case involving a heinous offence of murder.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6581
HC-KAR
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NB
CT:SI
