[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Hemareddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3037
CRL.A No. 200098 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200098 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. HEMAREDDY
S/O DODDA NARASANNA
AGE: 52 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
2. SOMASHEKHAR
S/O HEMAREDDY
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BANNAHATTI PA,
TQ: SINDAGI
3. HANUMANTHA
Digitally signed by
S/O K DODDA BHEEMANNA
SHIVALEELA AGE: 38 YEARS,
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
Location: HIGH OCC: AGRICULTURE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
4. ERESH S/O ERANNA
AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O TURUKUNDONI VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND V. PATTANSHETTI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3037
CRL.A No. 200098 of 2026
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SHO,
YERAGERA POLICE STATION,
DIST: RAICHUR-584101
R/BY ADDL. SPP KALABURAGI
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107
2. PRANESH S/O BASSAPPA
AGED: 20 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
R/O TURUKUNDONI VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/SEC. 14-A (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
17.01.2026 PASSED IN CRL. MISC. NO.776/2025 PASSED BY
I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. II) THAT, FOR THE
REASONS STATED ABOVE AMONGST OTHERS, IT IS HUMBLY
PRAYED THAT, THE HONOURABLE COURT BE PLEASED TO
GRANT THE REGULAR BAIL TO THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.
1 TO 4 IN YERAGERA PS CRIME NO.184/2025 DISTRICT
RAICHUR, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS AND JUDGE, RAICHUR FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 352, 351(2), 118(1), 103(1), 238(a), R/W
3(5) OF BNS 2023 AND 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3037
CRL.A No. 200098 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this
Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'
for short) in Crime No.184/2025 of Yeragera Police
Station, Dist: Raichur, pending before the learned I Addl.
Sessions Judge, Raichur in Spl.C(AC)No.247/2026
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 352,
351(2), 118(1), 103(1), 238(a) r/w 3(5) of BNS 2023 and
Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act Amendment, 2015 on the basis of the first
information lodged by informant-Pranesh.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal
are that; on the basis of the complaint lodged by Sri
Pranesh, Yeragera Police have registered the case in Crime
No.184/2025 against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the
commission of offence under Sections 352, 351(2),
118(1), 103(1), 238(a), 3(5) of BNS 2023 and Sections
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3037
HC-KAR
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act Amendment, 2015. During investigation,
accused Nos.1 to 4 were apprehended and produced
before the Court and remanded to judicial custody on
10.12.2025. After investigation, charge sheet came to be
filed for the above said offences. Since the appellants are
in custody from 10.12.2025, they approached the I Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Raichur for grant of bail in
Criminal Misc.No.776/2025, which came to be rejected by
order dated 17.01.2026. Hence this appeal is filed.
3. Heard Sri Shivanand V.Pattanshetti, learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin,
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent
No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants has urged the following grounds:
(a) The appellants are innocent, they have been
involved in this case just to harassing them with
the political motive and with personal vendetta.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3037
HC-KAR
(b) As per the case of the prosecution, the offences
alleged to have been committed on 26.11.2025 at
about 09.30 p.m. whereas the complaint is came
to be lodged on 09.12.2025 at about 04.30 PM
i.e., after lapse of 12 days delay, which creates
reasonable doubt and false implication of the
accused by making untenable allegations against
the appellants.
(c) It can be seen from the complaint on 26.11.2025
deceased Basappa had gone along with Yallappa
S/o. Narasayya of Turukanadoni at about 09.30
p.m. He has not returned to home till tracing of
the dead body on 27.11.2025 at 07.00 a.m. It is
very interesting to note that, the complainant are
his family members have not made any enquiry
with said Yallappa, regarding whereabouts of
Basappa. Surprisingly after lapse of 12 days i.e.,
on 09.12.2025, the said Yallappa informed the
complainant about causing death of Basappa by
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3037
HC-KAR
the appellants. The behavior of said Yallappa and
not informing the murder of Basappa to the family
members creates serious doubt about genesis of
the complaint. It appears that, the said Yallappa is
planted as a eyewitnesses after 12 days only in
order to involve the appellants, though he has not
witnessed anything, probably in order to screen
him said Yallappa is planted as a witness rather
than accused.
(d) As per the allegations, the appellant No.1
daughter and relative of complainant namely:
Kashiralinga ran away and no incident has
occurred between the complainant family and
accused family and there are no cases filed by the
appellants. Only after lapse of more than 04
years, such a false allegations are made by the
complainant.
(e) On 27.11.2025 UDR case was registered on
suspicious about the cause of death of Basappa,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3037
HC-KAR
wherein it is mentioned that on his private part
and over neck some abrasions were found.
Subsequently, on 09.12.2025 the very same
complainant filed complaint involving the
appellants in the alleged incident creates serious
doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution
case.
(f) The allegations made against the appellants will
not make-out ingredients of common intention,
murder or screening the evidence and more-over
the alleged offences under Sub-Clause of Section
3 of the SC/ST P.A. Amendment Act-2015. As per
the allegations, the offence has taken place during
night hours as there is no any public view, it has
taken place in a land, hence the offences under
atrocities act also not attracted against the
appellants.
(g) The offences alleged in the complaint and remand
yadi yet to be proved by the prosecution and the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3037
HC-KAR
offences alleged against the present appellants are
also to be proved during full pledged trial, the
main case would not commence and conclude in
the near future, keeping the appellants behind
bars for an indefinite period would not only violate
Article 21 of the Constitution of India but also
amounts to pre-trial punishment.
(h) The investigation is at the verge of completion.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this
case, no custodial interrogation is necessary.
(i) The appellants were arrested on 10.12.2025 since
then they are in judicial custody. Appellants hails
from respected family and they are having
movable and immovable properties.
(j) The appellants are ready and willing to abide by
any stringent conditions that may be imposed by
this Court, while enlarging them on bail.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3037
HC-KAR
On all these grounds sought for allowing of the
application.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would
submits that the trial Court has properly appreciated the
materials on record and rightly rejected the petition and
sought for dismissal of the application.
6. Having heard the arguments on both sides and
on perusal of the materials available on record, the
following points would arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether the appellants are entitled for bail
as sought for?
(2) What order?
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the affirmative:
Pointe No.2: As per final order:
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3037
HC-KAR
Regarding Point No.1:
8. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court. On the basis of the complaint filed by
Sri.Pranesh, Yeragera Police have registered the case in
Crime No.184/2025 for the aforesaid offences and
submitted the FIR to the Court on 10.02.2025 at 10.55
a.m. and there is a delay of 13 days in filing the
complaint. It is an admitted fact that prior to the filing of
this complaint, case was registered in UDR No.15/2025 on
27.11.2025. Now the investigation is already completed,
charge sheet is submitted against all the accused. As per
the charge sheet, the Yallappa is the only eyewitness. The
evidence of this eye witness was recorded on 02.01.2026
and there is a delay of more than 36 days in recording the
statement of Yallappa. Now the accused are not required
for further investigation. Without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, at this stage, only for granting
bail, considering the submission made by the learned
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3037
HC-KAR
counsel for the appellants, it is just and proper to allow
the application.
9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
ii. The order dated 17.01.2026 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.776/2025 by the I Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, is
hereby set-aside.
iii. The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 are directed
to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.184/2025 of Yeragera
Police Station, Dist: Raichur, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 352, 351(2), 118(1), 103(1),
238(a), 3(5) of BNS 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Amendment, 2015, pending before the learned I Addl.
Sessions Judge, Raichur in Spl.C.(AC)No.247/2026 subject
to the following conditions:
a) The appellants shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:3037
HC-KAR
for the likesum, to the satisfaction of
the trial Court;
b) The appellants shall appear
regularly on all the dates of hearing
before the Trial Court unless the Trial
Court exempts their appearance for
valid reasons;
c) The appellants shall not directly or
indirectly threaten or tamper with the
prosecution witnesses;
d) The appellants shall not involve in
similar offences in future;
e) The appellants shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the Trial Court without
permission of the said Court until the
case registered against them is
disposed off.
Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to
the concerned Trial Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
MSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
CT-BH
