[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri Avesh S/O Shivaputra Jiragale vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2026

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                   -1-
                                                               NC: 2026:KHC-D:201
                                                         CRL.A No. 100704 of 2025


                          HC-KAR




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

                        DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                            BEFORE

                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100704 OF 2025 (U/S 14 A(2) OF
                                        SC AND ST ACT)

                         BETWEEN:

                         1.   SHRI AVESH S/O SHIVAPUTRA JIRAGALE
                              AGE 24 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
                              R/O. AINAPUR TQ. KAGWAD,
                              DIST. BELAGAVI 591303.

                         2.   SUHAS S/O SHIVAJI LONDE
                              AGE 22 YEARS, OCC. MILK VENDOR
                              R/O. KUDACHI ROAD AINAPUR TQ. KAGWAD
                              DIST BELAGAVI 591303.

                         3.  SHRI SADASHIV S/O MALLAPPA KURUNDAWAD
Digitally signed
                             AGE 39 YEARS, OCC. MILK VENDOR
by SAMREEN
AYUB
DESHNUR
                             R/O. AINAPUR TQ. KAGWAD
Location: High
Court of                     DIST BELAGAVI 591303.
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
                                                                  ...APPELLANTS
                         (BY SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

                         AND:

                         1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                              THROUGH REPRESENTED BY THE
                              PSI KAGWAD POLICE STATION
                              TQ KAGWAD DIST BELAGAVI 591223
                              THROUGH SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                              BENCH DHARWAD-591223.
                                  -2-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC-D:201
                                        CRL.A No. 100704 of 2025


HC-KAR




2.   VIKAS S/O. DADA WARE
     AGE 45 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER
     R/O. ASHTA VILLAGE TQ WALVA
     DIST. SANGLI, STATE MAHARASHTRA-416301.

3.   SUDHIR NABHIRAJ GASTI
     AGE.48 YEARS,
     AT ASTA, TQ.WALVA, SANGLI,
     MAHARASTRA-416406.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. S.H. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND
ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOWED AND SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON DATED 25/10/2025 IN CRIMINAL
MISC NO.1258/2025 BY THE III ADDL DISTRICT SESSIONS
JUDGE BELAGAVI, AND THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1, 3
AND 4 MAY BE ORDERED TO BE RELEASED ON REGULAR BAIL IN
KAGWAD P. S. CRIME NO.200/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(2) (v), 3(1) (r)(s) SC/ST (PA)
ACT AND UNDER SECTION 126(2), 190, 115(2), 189(2), 309(4),
191(3), 324(5), 352 OF B.N.S WHICH WAS CASE IS PENDING
BEFORE THE III ADDL DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

                          ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

1. Heard Sri.Vithal S. Teli, learned counsel for appellant,

learned High Court Government Pleader-Sri.Jairam Siddi, for

respondent No.1 and Sri.S.H.Yadawad, learned counsel for

respondents No.2 and 3.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:201

HC-KAR

2. The appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled

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

(for short 'the Act'), seeking following relief:

"Wherefore, the Appellants/Accused No 1, 3 and 4 It is most humbly prayed that the appeal under section 14 A(2) of the SC and ST (POA) Act, may kindly be allowed and set aside the impugned order passed on dated 25/10/2025 in Criminal Misc No 1258/2025 by the Hon'ble III addl district sessions judge Belagavi, and the appellants/accused no.13 and 4 may kindly be ordered to be released on regular bail in Kagwad P. S. Crime No. 200/2025 for the offence punishable under section 3(2) (v), 3(1) (r)(s), SC/ST (PA) Act. and under section 126(2), 190, 115(2), 189(2), 309(4), 191(3), 324(5), 352 of B.N.S which was case is pending before the Hon'ble III addl district sessions judge Belagavi, in the interest of justice."

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the present appeal are as under:

In respect of an incident that occurred on 23.09.2025 at

about 09.45 p.m. to 09.50 p.m. within the limits of of Kagwad

Police station, a case came to be registered in Crime

No.200/2025. In the complaint, it is alleged that respondent

Nos.2 and 3, being the driver and cleaner of lorry bearing

No.KA-71/2045 was intercepted by group of 20 to 25 persons

NC: 2026:KHC-D:201

HC-KAR

and attacked the driver and the cleaner of the lorry by taking out

their caste names and pouring diesel onto the lorry lit the fire

and caused damages to the lorry, which was carrying beef in it

belonging to Sahebalal.

4. After registering the case police investigated the

matter and filed charge sheet.

5. Attempt made by the appellants to obtain an order of

grant of bail is turned down by the learned Special Judge and

thereafter appellants are before this Court.

6. Sri.Vithal S. Teli, learned counsel for the appellants

reiterating the grounds that in the memorandum of appeal

vehemently contented that the entire incident is a concocted

incident and in fact a case is also registered against respondent

Nos.2 and 3 for having illegally transported the beef from

Belagavi to Kalburgi.

7. Admittedly, there was no license or permit for

carrying and transporting the beef from Belagavi to Kalburgi. He

would further contend that since the charge sheet is filed,

continuation of the appellants in judicial custody is no longer

warranted.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:201

HC-KAR

8. He would also contend that per se having regard to

the time of the incident and even according to the complaint

averments, the appellants did not know the caste of the

respondent No 2 and 3 so as to attract the offences punishable

under the provisions of the Act. He would also contend that, at

the most, the case would fall under other provisions of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and therefore, gravity of the offence is

reduced to considerable extent.

9. He would further contend that co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in respect of accused No.2 has already granted bail in

Criminal Appeal No.100701/2025 and the present appellants also

stand on the same footing and therefore, they are entitled for

grant of bail on the ground of parity.

10. Per contra, Sri.Jairam Siddi opposes the bail grounds

by contending that incident is a costly incident wherein a mob

consisting 20 to 25 persons have attacked the respondents No.2

and 3 and abused them and assaulted them and they went even

to the extent of burning the entire lorry by pouring the diesel

and lilting the fire and therefore the appellants are not entitled

for grant of bail.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:201

HC-KAR

11. Sri.S.H.Yadwad, learned counsel for the respondent

No.2 and 3, while adopting the arguments put forth on behalf of

the learned High Court Government Pleader, would further

contend that near registration of the case against respondent

Nos.2 and 3 for illegally transporting the beef cannot be a ground

for the appellants to get an order of bail and sought for dismissal

of the appeal.

12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court

perused the matter on record meticulously.

13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is

pertinent to note that in the FIR itself, the time of incident is

mentioned as 09.45 p.m. to 09.50 p.m. It is also stated that the

place of incident is an isolated and lonely place and prima facie

there cannot be any public view and in the night in a lonely

place.

14. Moreover, the complaint averments itself would

reveal that the mob, who attacked the lorry enquired the

accused persons and they revealed their caste names and at that

juncture they have used the caste name and abused them.

Anyway, it is a matter that has to be decided by the Court

NC: 2026:KHC-D:201

HC-KAR

whether the provisions of the Act would apply to the case on

hand or not during the trial.

15. Suffice to say that in the FIR, the incident said have

been reported to the Kagwad Police Station at 08.30 p.m. when

the incident has happened at 09.45 p.m. That itself shows that

the complaint is a motivated complaint.

16. Be it what it may. Since the second accused has been

granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and role

assigned to the present appellants and the second accused are

practically similar, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

present appellants are also entitled to be enlarged on bail.

17. Other apprehensions of the prosecution can be met

with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions.

18. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal allowed.

(ii) The appellants are directed to be enlarged on

bail in a Special Case No.681 of 2025 by taking

NC: 2026:KHC-D:201

HC-KAR

a bond in a sum of ₹1,00,000/- with two

sureties for the like sum.