[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Vivek S/O Vilas Avalakki vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2489
CRL.A No. 100003 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100003 OF 2026
(U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT)
BETWEEN:
1. VIVEK S/O VILAS AVALAKKI,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. DURGA NAGAR, KHANAPUR DIST.,
BELAGAVI PIN CODE 590001.
2. AJAY S/O ANANT POTE,
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. NINGAPUR GALLI,
KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-590003.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH KHANAPUR POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI, R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CHANDRASHEKAR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI DHARWAD.
2. GANESH S/O SHIVALING NANDGADKAR,
AGE. 18 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
R/O. DURGA NAGAR, ASHRAY COLONY,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI PIN CODE 590001.
Date: 2026.02.19
11:00:20 +0530
3. SRUJAN S/O RAJESHEKHAR HIREMATH
AGE. 18 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. DURGA NAGAR, ASHRAY COLONY,
KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI PIN CODE 590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE SERVED R2 AND R3)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2489
CRL.A No. 100003 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 SEEKING TO ENLARGED PETITIONER/
ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 2 IN BAIL CONNECTION KHANAPUR P.S. CRIME
NO.248/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. 137(2), 126(2), 118(1), 352,
351(3), 3(5) OF BNS ACT, AND 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(VA) OF SC/ST
ACT, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2025 IN CRL.MISC
NO. 1554/2025 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DIST AND SESSION JUDGE
BELAGAVI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri Mahantesh S.Hiremath, learned counsel for
appellants and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1.
2. Appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC
and ST (POA) Act', for short) with the following prayer:
"To enlarged petitioner/accused no. 1 and 2 in bail
connection Khanapur P.S. Crime No.248/2025 for the
offence u/sec. 137(2), 126(2), 118(1), 352, 351(3), 3(5)
of bns act, and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, by
setting aside the order dated 12.12.2025 in Crl.Misc No.
1554/2025 on the file of III Addl. Dist and Session Judge
Belagavi, in the interest of justice."
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2489
HC-KAR
3. Appellants are the accused who have been charge
sheeted for the offences under Section 137(2), 126(2), 118(1),
352, 351(3), 3(5) of BNS and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC
and ST (POA) Act.
4. Gist of the charge sheet material would reveal that
there was an altercation on 24.11.2025 between 07.00 p.m. to
10.00 p.m. in Ningapura Galli in Kamble's house at Khanapur
and in the incident, appellants herein said to have abused the
complainant/injured in filthy language taking out caste name and
also assaulted with hands, sticks and stones. The complainant
and his friend was asked to remove the clothes and they have
shown the sickle and complainant and his friend has been given
a life threat by showing the sickle.
5. Thereafter, the motive for the incident is that
complainant and his friend said to have sent a message to the
appellants' girlfriend.
6. Next date at about 11.36 a.m., complainant and
another injured went to Taluka General Hospital and got treated
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2489
HC-KAR
there and approached the Khanapura Police Station at about
04.00 p.m. and lodged the written complaint.
7. In the wound certificate of injured by name Srujan, it
has been mentioned that there is a burnt mark on the leg may
be with the cigarette burn noted. Doctor has not noted the colour
of the injury or the age of the said injury. In the complaint itself,
no such mention is made.
8. After resisting the case, police apprehended the
present appellants and sent them to judicial custody and now
completed the investigation filed charge sheet.
9. Attempt made by the appellants to obtain order of
grant of bail is turned down by the learned Special Judge.
Thereafter, appellants are before this Court.
10. Sri Mahantesh S.Hiremath, learned counsel for the
appellants reiterating the bail grounds contended that since the
charge sheet is filed and the injured having discharged from the
hospital as outpatient with history of simple injury, continuation
of the appellants in judicial custody no longer warranted and
sought for allowing the appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2489
HC-KAR
11. Per contra, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court
Government Pleader would contend that there are direct
allegations against the appellants which would attract the offence
punishable under the Provisions of SC and ST (POA) Act and
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
12. Having heard the arguments of both side, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
noticed that the altercation said have taken place on 24.11.2025
between 07.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. in Ningapura Galli in Kamble's
house at Khanapur.
14. Further, next day morning 11.36 a.m., the injured
has visited the Taluka Hospital and later on they have
approached the police at 04.00 p.m. with a written complaint. In
the complaint itself, they have stated that after enquiring with
the family members, a belated complaint came to the filed.
15. The age of the injury is not mentioned in the wound
certificate which is part of the charge sheet papers. This Court at
this stage need not express any opinion on the merits of the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2489
HC-KAR
matter as it may prejudice the case of the parties during the trial
one way or the other.
16. Suffice to say that the material on record at this
stage would not disentitle the appellants obtaining an order of
grant of bail by resorting to the special powers vested in this
Court. Other apprehensions of the prosecution can be met with
by imposing suitable and stringent conditions.
17. Accordingly, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. Appellants are directed to be enlarged on bail
on executing a bond in a sum of ₹50,000/-
each with one surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the learned Special Judge.
iii. Appellants shall attend the Court regularly.
iv. Appellants shall not tamper the prosecution
witnesses in any manner.
v. Appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the Belagavi District without their permission.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2489
HC-KAR
Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the
prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
CLK
CT:CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 27
