[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri Shankar S/O Mallappa Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2488
CRL.A No. 100005 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. 100005 OF 2026
(U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT)
BETWEEN:
SHRI SHANKAR S/O MALLAPPA NAIK
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. ADAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591248.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MALAKAPPA N. WARAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH S.P.P.,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
THROUGH AIGALI POLICE STATION-591248.
2. RAVI S/O RENUKA KAMBALE
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI R/O. CHAMAKERI VILLAGE,
Date: 2026.02.19
11:00:42 +0530
TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591248.
3. RAJU DEVATA KAMBLE
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESSMAN,
R/O HULAGOBAL,
R/O: HULAGABAL, NOW AT: GASTI PLOT,
ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591248.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2488
CRL.A No. 100005 of 2026
HC-KAR
4. SANGEETA RAJU KAMBLE
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. HULAGABAL, NOW AT ATHANI,
TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591248.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE SERVED TO R2 AND R4)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE PRESENT BAIL APPEAL AND BE PLEASE TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2025 PASSED BY THE III ADDL
SESSIONS JUDGE, EXCLUSIVE SPECIAL COURT,
BELAGAVI,WHEREBY THE BAIL APPLICATION WAS
REJECTED. PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON
REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH SPL CASE NO.
630/2025 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO: 106/2025 AIGALI
P.S. REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT POLICE FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC 189(2), 191(2), 191(3),
61(2), 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 352, 351(3), 324 R/W
190 OF BNS-2023 AND U/SEC 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(VA),
AND 3(2)(V) OF SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED
TRIBE(POA) ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDL.
SESSIONS COURT, EXCLUSIVE SPECIAL COURT BELAGAVI
AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2488
CRL.A No. 100005 of 2026
HC-KAR
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 Malakappa N.Warad, learned counsel for
appellant and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1.
2. Appellant has been arrested and arraigned as
accused No.7. After 40 days of filing the charge sheet in respect
of the Crime No.106/2025 of Aigali Police Station, Belagavi.
3. Material on record would reveal that a complaint
came to be lodged by the second respondent against the accused
No.1 to 6 and it was thoroughly investigated and charge sheet
came to be filed against the accused No. 1 to 6. However after
filing the charge sheet after lapse of 40 days, present appellant
has been arraigned as accused No.7 and he was arrested and
sent to judicial custody.
4. There is no additional charge sheet or supplementary
charge sheet filed in the case. On close reading of the charge
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2488
HC-KAR
sheet, the Investigation Officer also did not seek liberty to
investigate the matter further and file supplementary charge
sheet by conducting the further investigation as is contemplated
under Section 173A of Cr.P.C.
5. Only on the basis of the fact that accused was also
present at the time of incident without there being any
supporting material, accused No.7 has been made as an
additional accused. Particulars found in the remand application is
not sufficient to arraign him as an accused no.7.
6. Be what it may, it is for the concerned Court to take
appropriate action in that regard.
7. Fact remains that in the absence of any connecting
material which would establish the nexus between the present
appellant and the main incident only on the basis of the facts
mentioned in the remand application, continuation of the
accused in judicial custody is no longer warranted.
8. Objection statement filed by the learned High Court
Government Pleader also does not make out any good ground to
deny the bail to the appellant.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2488
HC-KAR
9. Accordingly, without expressing any further opinion
on merits of the matter, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. Appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail on
executing a bond in a sum of ₹50,000/- with
one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction
of the learned Special Judge.
iii. Appellant shall attend the Court regularly.
iv. Appellant shall not tamper the prosecution
witnesses in any manner.
v. Appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
Belagavi District without their permission.
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.: 28
