Karnataka High Court

Sri Sunil Mallikarjun Murkibhavi vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 September, 2025

Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                                     -1-
                                                                 NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472
                                                           CRL.A No. 100424 of 2025


                      HC-KAR



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                       DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
                                             BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100424 OF 2025
                                  (U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT)

                     BETWEEN:
                     SRI. SUNIL MALLIKARJUN MURKIBHAVI,
                     AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                     R/O. BASAVA NAGAR, GOKAK,
                     DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-580 001.
                                                                             ... APPELLANT
                     (BY SRI. RAVI B. NAYAK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
                         SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)

                     AND:

                     1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                        REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                        THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR,
                        MARKET POLICE STATION,
                        BELAGAVI, PIN-591 307.

                     2. DEEPAK SREEKANT INGALGI,
                        AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER,
                        R/O. ADI JAMBAVA NAGAR, GOKAK,
         Digitally
         signed by
         RAKESH S
                        DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591 307.
RAKESH HARIHAR
S       Location:
        HIGH
HARIHAR COURT OF
                                                                     ... RESPONDENTS
         KARNATAKA
         DHARWAD
         BENCH
                     (BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
                         SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
                         SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

                            THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14 A(2) OF SC
                     AND ST (POA) ACT 1989, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
                     REJECTING GRANTING OF REGULAR BAIL PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
                     DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI DATED 04.09.2024 PASSED
                     IN SPL. CASE NO.202/2020 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
                     SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 150, 341, 302, 120B, 212, 201, 109, 115,
                     504, 506 R/W 34, 35, 37 AND 149 OF IPC, SECTIONS 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S),
                     3(2)(V), 3(2)(VA), 8(1)(A) OF SC/ST POA ACT, 1989, SECTIONS 25(1)A,
                     251BVI(6), (7) OF ARMS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2019 AND SECTIONS
                     3(1)(I), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5) AND 4 OF KARNATAKA CONTROL OF
                               -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472
                                    CRL.A No. 100424 of 2025


HC-KAR



ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 2000, GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN SPL.
CASE NO.202/2020 OF CR.NO.72/2020 GOKAK TOWN P.S., IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

     THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS
ON 24.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, ORDER
IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

                       CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

1. Accused No.1 in Special Case No.202/2020 pending before

the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi,

arising out of Crime No.72/2020 registered by Gokak Town

Police Station, Belagavi, for offences punishable under Sections

143, 144, 147, 148, 150, 341, 302, 120B, 212, 201, 109, 115,

504, 506 read with Sections 34, 35, 37 and 149 of IPC, Sections

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v,a) and 8(1)A of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST (POA) Act' for short),

Section 25(1)A of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 25(1)(B) VI

(6)(7) of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 and Sections 3(1)(i),

3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the Karnataka Control of

Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

KCOCA Act' for short) is before this Court in this successive

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989,

seeking regular bail.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant,

learned Advocate General for respondent No.1 and learned

Counsel for respondent No.2/defacto complainant.

3. Facts leading to filing of this Criminal Appeal narrated

briefly are, respondent No.2 had approached Gokak Town Police

Station, Belagavi, on 06.05.2020 and submitted a first

information stating that Siddappa Arjun Kanamaddi, who is the

deceased in the present case, was the State President of Youth

Dalit Sangharsha Samiti and accused named in the FIR and

others had an ill-will against him in the background of the

murder case of Rohith Patil and the accused, who belonged to

upper caste, knowing well that the deceased belonged to

schedule caste had abused him referring to his caste and also

thereafter, assaulted him with deadly weapons near Adi Jambav

Nagara cross and attempted to commit his murder. He has

further alleged that when an attempt was made to rescue the

victim, the accused persons had abused and threatened them

with dire consequences to their life. It is under these

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

circumstances, FIR was registered in Crime No.72/2020 by

Gokak Town Police Station, Belagavi, initially for the offences

punishable under Sections 506, 147, 143, 504, 148, 307 and

149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989

against Gangadar Santram Shinde and others. Injured victim

Siddappa Arjun Kanamaddi subsequently died in the Hospital

while undergoing treatment on 07.05.2020 and thereafter, the

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC was invoked in the

present case.

4. During the course of investigation, appellant herein was

arrested on 13.05.2020 and subsequently, remanded to judicial

custody. Considering the criminal history of the accused, who

were arrested in the present case, Investigation Officer had

sought permission from the Additional Director General of Police,

Bengaluru, to invoke the provisions of the KCOCA Act in the

present case against the accused and by order dated 27.10.2020

permission was granted by the competent authority to invoke

the provisions of KCOCA Act against the accused in the present

case.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

5. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed in

the present case initially against 20 persons and appellant is

arraigned as accused No.1 in the charge sheet. In the

meanwhile, bail application filed by appellant before the

jurisdictional Sessions Court was rejected and therefore, he had

approached this Court in Crl.P.No.100614/2020, which was

dismissed as withdrawn on 12.08.2020. During the pendency of

Crl.P.No.100614/2020, appellant and other accused had filed

applications under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. before the Trial

Court seeking statutory bail on the ground that charge sheet

was not filed within the prescribed time. The said applications

were rejected by the Trial Court. Therefore, appellant and other

accused had approached this Court in Crl.A.No.100329/2020

C/w Crl.A.100327/2020, which were dismissed by a common

judgment by this Court on 22.01.2021. Subsequently, the

appellant had filed a fresh bail application before the Trial Court

in Special Case No.202/2020, which was rejected on

04.09.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that

allegation against the appellant is only about conspiracy to

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

commit the murder. He submits that accused Nos.11 to 14 and

16 to 21, have been granted regular bail in the present case by

the Trial Court and the said order has been confirmed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. Appellant is in custody for the last more

than 5 years. Out of the 245 charge sheet witnesses cited in the

present case, only 21 charge sheet witnesses have been

examined till date as PW1 to PW21. Out of the 12 cases which

were registered against the appellant, he has been acquitted in 8

cases. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on

the following judgments:-

1. Bharath @ Nepali and Anr. vs. State of Karnataka by Parappana Agrahara PS reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 16003

2. Roopesh R vs. State of Karnataka by Mahalaxmi Layout PS reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3673

3. Ranjana Tanaji Wanve vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5548

4. Order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Pet. No.7963/2023 in the case of Mohan Nayak N vs. State of Karnataka

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

5. Order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Pet. No.927/2023 c/w 9147/2023 and 9465/2023 in the case of Sri Amit Digvekar vs. State of Karnataka

6. Mohammed Ghouse Khan vs. State of Karnataka, rep by State Public Prosecutor reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 2256

7. Ramesh Bhavan Radhod vs. Vishanbhai Hirebhai Makwana (Koli) & Anr. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230

8. Order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Pet. No.410/2019 in the case of Sri Mirle Varadaraju vs. State of Karnataka & anr.

7. Per contra, learned Advocate General has strongly opposed

the prayer made in the appeal. He submits that appellant is a

person with criminal antecedents and he is the founder member

of a gang known as Tiger Gang, which is involved in committing

organized crimes. He submits that dying declaration of the

deceased has been recorded in the present case and there is a

specific allegation in the dying declaration as against the

appellant. Appellant had a strong motive to commit the murder

of the deceased and prior to the alleged incident, appellant and

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

other accused had threatened the deceased. Immediately after

the alleged incident, appellant had contacted the other accused

including the assailants, over phone. In all the earlier criminal

cases registered against appellant, he has been acquitted since

the witnesses had turned hostile. After he was arrested in the

present case, from the jail, he has attempted to destroy the

evidence. The trial in the case has already commenced and all

the witnesses examined till date have supported the case of the

prosecution. Prosecution intends to examine only 75 charge

sheet witnesses in this case. Material charge sheet witnesses are

yet to be examined and considering the background of the

appellant, it is imminent that in the event, he is enlarged on bail,

he is likely to tamper with the charge sheet witnesses.

Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that

provisions of the KCOCA Act have been invoked in the present

case and having regard to Section 22(4) of the KCOCA Act, the

appellant's prayer for regular bail needs to be rejected. In

support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

State of Maharashtra vs. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty -

(2012) 10 SCC 561.

9. Perusal of the records in the present case reveal that

appellant and other accused in the present case are all members

of a gang known as Tiger Gang, which allegedly has been

operating in and around Belagavi District and also in some parts

of Maharashtra State. Appellant is a person with criminal

antecedents and as many as 12 criminal cases were registered

against him. It appears that one Rohith Patil, who was the

member of Tiger Gang, was murdered and in the said case,

Mallikarjun Bajantri and others, who were associates of

deceased Siddappa Arjun Kanamaddi were arraigned as accused

and tried in SC No.228/2018. During the course of trial in the

said case, deceased Siddappa Arjun Kanamaddi allegedly tried to

contact the charge sheet witnesses in the said case and

pressurized them to turn hostile. It is under these

circumstances, appellant and other members of the Tiger Gang

had a vengeance against deceased Siddappa Arjun Kanamaddi

and in February, 2020, appellant along with accused Nos.2 and 9

had gone to the house of deceased and in front of the wife of

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

deceased, namely, CW8, they had threatened the deceased with

dire consequences. Thereafter, the appellant along with the

other accused persons conspired to commit the murder of the

Siddappa Arjun Kanamaddi and certain amount was also paid to

accused No.2.

10. In furtherance of the aforesaid conspiracy, on 06.05.2020

at about 20.10 hours, accused Nos.3 to 10 and 17 arrived at the

spot of crime in two vehicles and thereafter, assaulted Siddappa

Arjun Kanamaddi with deadly weapons and escaped from the

spot. Immediately thereafter, injured Siddappa Arjun Kanamaddi

was shifted to a Hospital and according to the prosecution in the

said Hospital, the dying declaration of injured Siddappa Arjun

Kanamaddi was recorded in the presence of CW20 and 21.

Subsequently, injured Siddappa Arjun Kanamaddi had

succumbed to the injuries and had died in the Hospital on

07.05.2020. The material on record would go to show that

appellant had a strong motive to commit the murder of

deceased. It is also found that immediately after the crime was

committed, it was found that appellant had contacted other

accused persons including the assailants over mobile phone and

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

during the course of investigation, call detail records of the

accused have been collected.

11. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that after the appellant

was arrested in the present case, he had contacted accused

Nos.13 and 14 from jail and had instigated them to destroy the

evidence of the offence and accordingly, accused Nos.13 and 14

had destroyed certain documentary evidence which was in the

house of the appellant. The material on record would go to show

that when the appellant was in jail, he had used SIM card Nos.

8150844294 and 7259940446 and had threatened the material

charge sheet witnesses in the present case.

12. Learned Advocate General has submitted that trial in the

case has commenced and material charge sheet witnesses

examined as on this day have all supported the case of the

prosecution. CW20 and CW21, who allegedly were present while

recording the dying declaration are said to have been examined

as PW5 and PW6 in the present case. It is also submitted by the

learned Advocate General that some of the material charge

sheet witnesses are yet to be examined and he has expressed

apprehension that in the event, appellant is enlarged on bail, he

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

is likely to tamper with the material charge sheet witnesses. The

said apprehension cannot be brushed aside having regard to the

criminal history of the appellant. The dispute between the

appellant and deceased arose, for the reason that deceased was

pressurizing the charge sheet witnesses in SC No.228/2018

whereas the appellant wanted the said charge sheet witnesses to

depose against the accused in SC No.228/2018. It is also

brought to the notice of this Court that in all the other criminal

cases in which appellant has been acquitted, the material charge

sheet witnesses had turned hostile. In the present case, the

charge sheet material would go to show that, after the appellant

was arrested in the present case, from the jail itself, he had

threatened the material charge sheet witnesses in the present

case.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF

BIHAR V. RAJBALLAV PRASAD - (2017) 2 SCC 178, in

paragraph No.26 observed as follows:

"26. We are conscious of the fact that the respondent is only an undertrial and his liberty is also a relevant consideration. However, equally important consideration is the interest of the society and fair

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

trial of the case. Thus, undoubtedly the courts have to adopt a liberal approach while considering bail applications of the accused persons. However, in a given case, if it is found that there is a possibility of interdicting fair trial by the accused if released on bail, this public interest of fair trial would outweigh the personal interest of the accused while undertaking the task of balancing the liberty of the accused on the one hand and interest of the society to have a fair trial on the other hand. When the witnesses are not able to depose correctly in the court of law, it results in low rate of conviction and many times even hardened criminals escape the conviction. It shakes public confidence in the criminal justice-delivery system. It is this need for larger public interest to ensure that criminal justice-delivery system works efficiently, smoothly and in a fair manner that has to be given prime importance in such situations. After all, if there is a threat to fair trial because of intimidation of witnesses, etc., that would happen because of wrongdoing of the accused himself, and the consequences thereof, he has to suffer."

14. Learned Counsel for the appellant has strongly pleaded

before this Court that allegation against the appellant in the

present case is only of criminal conspiracy and he is in custody

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

for the last more than five years and considering his period of

incarceration, he is entitled to be enlarged on the bail. In

support of his argument, he has also placed reliance on several

judgments. Though, I am in complete agreement with the

principles laid down in the said judgments, I am afraid that they

can be made applicable to this case. The judgments on which

learned Senior counsel for the appellant has placed reliance has

been rendered having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the said case. It is trite that judgments can be relied upon as

precedents, only if the same are applicable to the facts and

circumstance of the case on hand.

15. The material on record would go to show that appellant is

the founder member of notorious gang by name Tiger Gang and

as against the members of the said gang, totally more than 49

cases have been registered and it is alleged that members of the

aforesaid gang were terrorising people and collecting hafta from

them. It is alleged that appellant and the members of the said

gang are indulged in committing organised crimes.

16. Appellant is a person with notorious criminal background

and as many as 12 criminal cases were registered against him

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

and learned Advocate General has brought to the notice of this

Court that in all the criminal cases in which appellant has been

acquitted, witnesses have turned hostile. The material on record

would also go to show that appellant had tried to threaten the

material charge sheet witnesses in the present case after he was

arrested and remanded to judicial custody. He has also

destroyed the evidence with the help of accused Nos.13 and 14

after he was arrested in the present case. The accused, who

have been granted bail in the present case by the Trial Court, do

not have the aforesaid history which the appellant has.

17. In the case of ASH MOHAMMAD VS. SHIV RAJ SINGH

AND ANOTHER - (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in paragraph No.30 has observed as follows:-

"30. We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction on liberty of the accused".

18. Circumstances of each case become crucial for granting or

refusing bail. The trial in the case has already commenced and

some of the material charge sheet witnesses have been

examined and according to the prosecution, they have supported

the case of the prosecution. It is submitted by learned Advocate

General that some of the material charge sheet witnesses are

yet to be examined. Therefore, at this stage, if the appellant is

enlarged on bail, the chances of he tampering the material

charge sheet witnesses, considering his background, cannot be

ruled out. The incident in question had taken place in the

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

presence of public and CW5 to CW8 and CW13 to CW15 are the

eyewitnesses to the incident in question. Considering the gravity

of the allegations and the offences committed in the present

case, I am of the opinion that, the same outweighs the detention

period of the appellant and merely for the reason that appellant

is in custody for a period of more than five years, his prayer for

grant of regular bail at this stage, when the trial is in progress

and some of the material charge sheet witnesses are yet to be

examined, cannot be granted.

19. Section 22(4) of the KCOCA Act, reads as follows:-

"(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on own bond, unless-

(a) The Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application of such release; and

(b) Where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail."

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

20. Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 22 of the KCOCA

Act, provides that when a Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer

made by the accused against whom the provisions of KCOCA Act

are invoked, if only the Court is satisfied that there are

reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of

such offences and he is not likely to commit any offence while on

bail, his prayer for bail can be granted.

21. Considering the background of the appellant and also

having regard to the material collected by the prosecution in the

present case, I am of the opinion that there are no reasonable

grounds for believing that the appellant is not guilty of the

alleged offences nor can it be said that he is not likely to commit

any offence while on bail, having regard to his antecedents.

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Vishwanath

Maranna Shetty (supra) wherein a similar provision under the

Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999, was

invoked against the accused, in paragraph Nos.29 and 30, has

observed as follows:-

"29. While dealing with a special statute like MCOCA, having regard to the provisions

- 19 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

contained in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of this Act, the Court may have to probe into the matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that the materials collected against the accused during the investigation may not justify a judgment of conviction. Similarly, the court will be required to record a finding as to the possibility of his committing a crime after grant of bail. What would further be necessary on the part of the Court is to see the culpability of the accused and his involvement in the commission of an organised crime either directly or indirectly. The Court at the time of considering the application for grant of bail shall consider the question from the angle as to whether he was possessed of the requisite mens rea. In view of the above, we also reiterate that when a prosecution is for offence(s) under a special statute and that statute contains specific provisions for dealing with matters arising thereunder, these provisions cannot be ignored while dealing with such an application. Since the respondent has been charged with the offence under MCOCA, while dealing with his application for grant of bail, in addition to the broad principles to be applied in prosecution for the offences under IPC, the relevant provision in the said statute, namely, sub-section (4) of Section 21 has to be kept in mind. It is also further made clear

- 20 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

that a bare reading of the non obstante clause in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of MCOCA that the power to grant bail to a person accused of having committed offence under the said Act is not only subject to the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 but also subject to the restrictions placed by clauses (a) and

(b) of sub-section (4) of Section 21. Apart from giving an opportunity to the prosecutor to oppose the application for such release, the other twin conditions viz. (i) the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. The satisfaction contemplated in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 21 regarding the accused being not guilty, has to be based on "reasonable grounds". Though the expression "reasonable grounds" has not been defined in the Act, it is presumed that it is something more than prima facie grounds. We reiterate that recording of satisfaction on both the aspects mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 21 is sine qua non for granting bail under MCOCA.

30. The analysis of the relevant provisions of MCOCA, similar provision in the NDPS Act and the

- 21 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

principles laid down in both the decisions shows that substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence for which he is charged must be satisfied. Further, a reasonable belief provided points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient to justify the satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. We have already highlighted the materials placed in the case on hand and we hold that the High Court has not satisfied the twin tests as mentioned above while granting bail."

23. The records reveal that after the bail application of some

of the accused who had no major role to play in the present case

was rejected by this Court, they had approached the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.6918/2024,

1332/2025, 4579/2025, 17527/2024 and 6513/2025, which

were disposed of by a common order dated 16.07.2025 by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court confirming the interim bail earlier

granted to the said accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its

order passed in the aforesaid Special Leave to Appeals, has

observed that the appellants before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

did not have criminal antecedents barring few of them. In

- 22 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the said order dated 16.07.2025, it

has been observed as follows:-

"4. The prosecution initially cited more than 200 witnesses but on suggestion by this Court, the list has been pruned and they now propose to examine about 75 witnesses, out of which 25 witnesses are the star witnesses. On a query, learned State counsel informed that 10 witnesses have been examined so far.

5. It may also be added at this stage that in terms of the direction issued by this Court in paragraph 3(iv) of order dated 26.03.2025 referred to above, the Trial Court is taking up the matter weekly."

24. Learned Advocate General has submitted that the trial in

the case is in progress and the directions found in the order

passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6918/2024 and

connected matters, is being strictly complied. As on this date, 21

charge sheet witnesses are examined as PW1 to PW21 and the

same shows that there is much progress in the trial. Under the

circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the

- 23 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13472

HC-KAR

appellant in this successive appeal for grant of regular bail

cannot be entertained at this stage. Accordingly, the appeal is