[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Rahul vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200045 OF 2026 (U/S 14 (A))
BETWEEN:
RAHUL
S/O SATISH JADHAV
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
R/O HOLASAMUDRA
TALUK: KAMALANAGAR
DISTRICT: BIDAR 585 417
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KADLOOR SATYANARAYANACHARYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KAMALANAGAR POLICE STATION
TALUK: KAMALANAGAR
DISTRICT: BIDAR 585 417
[RPTD. BY ADSPP HC KLB-585107]
Digitally signed by 2. SMT. REKHA
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA
W/O YOGESH KOYILE
UDAGI AGE 29 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O HOLASAMUDRA VILLAGE
KARNATAKA TALUK: KAMALANAGAR
DISTRICT: BIDAR 585 417 PH: 9611092761
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI CHAITANYA KUMAR C.M. AND
SRI NARENDRA N. BELLAD, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-
A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL
AND GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN SPECIAL
CASE NO.513 OF 2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.
2
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR ARISING OUT OF
CRIME NO.91 OF 2025 OF KAMALANAGAR POLICE STATION
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 103(1), 352 BNS 2023
READ WITH SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST POA
ACT, 1989.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 09.03.2026, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The appellant in this appeal is challenging the order dated
24th November 2025 passed in Criminal Misc.No.536 of 2025 by
the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bidar (for short
"the trial Court").
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on the basis of
complaint filed by Smt. Rekha, Kamalanagar Police have
registered a case in Crime No.91 of 2025 against the accused
for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 352 of BNS
2023, read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the SC/ST (PoA) Act"). After
investigation, investigating officer submitted charge-sheet
against the accused for commission of offence under Sections
103(1), 352 of BNS 2023, read with 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (PoA) Act. The police have arrested the accused and
produced before the trial court. Accused was remanded to
judicial custody. Accused filed application under Section 483 of
BNSS-2023 for grant of bail in Crime No.91 of 2025. The said
Application came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by rejection
of bail, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. Sri Kadloor Satyanarayanacharya, learned Counsel
appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant is
innocent and is law abiding citizen and he is falsely implicated
in the case. Being a driver by profession, he has no criminal
antecedents as such and his further detention would affect his
entire family as he is the only earning member in the family.
The appellant is a permanent resident of Holasamudra Village
of Aurad Taluk, Bidar District and is having immovable
property. The appellant's wife has not only deserted him by
leaving a four year girl child, but has run away with another
married person and that it has become difficult for the parents
to console the child who is very much attached to her father,
i.e. the appellant herein. Learned counsel would further submit
that the deceased had known criminal background and he was
having many enemies in the village as well as outside.
The allegations made against the complainant are yet to be
established during the course of trial. The detention of the
appellant should not lead to pre-trial sentence. He would also
submit that the bail is a rule and jail is an exception and the
appellant is entitled for bail. Deceased Yogesh, in reality, had
no acquaintance with the accused. It is even hard to imagine
that accused would pick up quarrel with the deceased Yogesh
or reply or indulge in the quarrel picked up by deceased
Yogesh. The charge-sheet does not disclose any motive as
against the applicant, since the appellant had no acquaintance
with the deceased. CW10-Sandeep, whose statement is
recorded by the Magistrate under section 183(5) of BNSS 2023,
who is shown to have seen the alleged incident from near by
sitting in his Kirana shop, also does not speak anything about
the previous acts, body language, and mannerism of the
accused before he met the deceased and also does not speak
about the reason which sparked quarrel between accused and
the deceased. Therefore, a prudent man can conclude that the
complaint is false and baseless. It is further submitted that as
could be seen from the contents of complaint and the
statement of witnesses, the deceased was abusing in filthy
language the father of the complainant in public Road for no
reason and it was intolerable which provoked the appellant
which resulted in this incident. It is clear from the prosecution
papers itself that there was no enmity between the complainant
and the deceased at any point of time and that there was no
premeditation to commit such offence. The case, as made out,
do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 103(1) of BNS 2023
and at the best would fall under fourth exception of Section 101
of BNS 2023, the punishment for which is certainly not life
imprisonment and the punishment would be as per the last but
one limb of Section 105 of BNS 2023, i.e. with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and
fine. Now that the Charge-sheet has been filed, as such,
custodial interrogation is no more required and the further
detention would only amount to pre-trial conviction. On all
these grounds, it is sought for allowing the appeal.
4. As against this, Sri Veeranagowda Malipatil, learned HCGP
appearing for respondent No.1-State, would submit that the
trial court has properly appreciated the material on record and
has passed the impugned order. Only after full-fledged trial,
the court can come to the conclusion as to whether the accused
has committed offence under section 103(1) and 352 of BNS
2023 read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
(PoA) Act. At this stage, prima facie, there are sufficient
materials to constitute the commission of alleged offence by the
appellant/accused. Hence, it is sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
5. Having heard on both sides and on perusal of records, the
following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the trial Court is justified in rejecting
the bail application, filed under Section 483 of
BNSS 2023?
2. What order?
Regarding Point No.1:
6. I have examined the materials placed before this court.
On the basis of complaint filed by Smt. Rekha, Kamalanagar
Police Station have registered Case in Crime No.91 of 2025
against the accused for commission of offences, punishable
under Sections 103(1), 352 of BNS 2023 and under Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. The
investigating officer submitted charge-sheet for the aforesaid
offences. In Column 17 of the charge-sheet, it is stated as
under:
"ಪ ಕರಣದ ಮೃತ ಮತು ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ ಾರರು ೋಕ ೋ
ಾ ೆ ೇ ದು ಮತು ಪ ಕರಣದ ಆ ಾ ತನು ಮ ಾಠ ಾ ೆ
ೇ ದವ!ಾ"ರು#ಾ!ೆ.
ಈ zÉÆõÁ ೋಪ%ೆ ಪತ ಾಲಂ ನಂ.12ರ)* ನಮೂದು +ಾ,ದ
D¥Á¢vÀ ಾಹುಲ eÁzsÀವರವರು !ಾಂಕ:27.08.2025 ರಂದು ಾ
ಅಂ ಾಜು 10.30 ¦.JA. ಗಂ ೆ ಸು+ಾ ೆ 3ೋಳಸಮುzÀæ ಾ ಮದ
ಸಂ ೕಪ ©Ã ಾ ಾರರವರ 5 ಾ6 ಅಂಗ, ಹ ರ 7ಂ ರು8ಾಗ ಈ
ೋ9ಾ ೋಪ%ೆ ಪತ ಾಲಂ ನಂ. 14ರ)* £ÀªÀÄÆದು +ಾ,ದ ಾ: ನಂ.
16 ರವರು ಆ ಾ ತನ ಹ ರ ಬಂದು ಮ ಾ<ಯ)* "ಆ ಾ ತ7 ೆ" "ಏ
ಾಹುಲ@ +ಾ%Á ಏಕ ಸು ಾ ¸ÁAUÀgÉ" ಅಂತ ಅಂ ದ ೆA ಆ ಾ ತನು
ಾ: ನಂಬB 16 ರವj ೆ ಮ ಾ<ಯ)*Cೕ «ÄÃPÁಬರ ಾಂಗು ೆ, ಅಂತ
ಅಂದು ಅವ!ೊಂ ೆ ಜಗಳ +ಾ,ದ ನು ಅ ೇ 8ೇEೆ ಅವ ಬFರ Gಂ ೆ
ಮೃತ Hೕ"±À ೊ¬ÄIೆgÀವರು ಇದ ರು ಅವರು ಇಬFರ ಮಧ@ ಬಂದು ಾ:
ನಂ.16 ರವರ ಪರ8ಾ" ಆ ಾ ತ7 ೆ ಏ ೆ ಅವ!ೊಂ ೆ ಜಗಳ
+ಾಡು ಅಂತ MNಾ ಸಲು 3ೋVzÁÝUÀ ಆ ಾ ತನು ಮೃತ7 ೆ 7ೕನು
Oಾರು ನನ ೆ ೇಳPವವನು ಅಂತ ಮೃತ!ೊಂ ೆ ಜಗಳ +ಾಡು ಾ ಗ,
ಆ ಾ ತನ ತಂ ೆOಾದ ಾ: ನಂ.15 ರವರು ಬಂದು ಇಬF ೆ ಜಗಳ
Q,R ಆ ಾ ತ7 ೆ Sೈದು ಕಳPGRದು ಮತು ಮೃತ HೕUÉñÀ
ೊ¬Ä%Éರವ ೆ ಕೂಡ ಸಮ ಾUಸು#ಾ 7ಂ ರು8ಾಗ ಆ ಾ ತನು
ಒWXIೇ ಬಂದು Hೕ"ೕಶ7 ೆ "K ರಂ, ಮಗ!ೇ Hೕಗ@ ೋಕ
ೋ ಸೂ ಮಗ!ೇ £À£Àß ತಂ ೆ ೆ ಏನು ಅನುZ ಅಂತ Sೈದು
[ೕ ಾB ೈಕ\ ಅ)* ಇ]^ರುವ Nಾಕು #ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು, ಆ NಾಕುM7ಂದ
ಮೃತ Hೕ"ೕಶನ ಎಡ `ಾಗದ ಗ ಾU ೆಳ ೆ ಮತು ಎಡಗaೆ ಕು ೆ
ಹ ರ 3ೊaೆದು ¨sÁ ರಕ ಾಯ ಪ,R ೊIೆ +ಾ,ರು#ಾ!ೆ. ಮೃತ7 ೆ
NಾಕುM7ಂದ 3ೊaೆಯು ರುವcದನುZ ಾ: ನಂ.10, 11, 14 ಮತು 15 ರವರು
ಪ ತ@d8ಾ" !ೋ,ರು#ಾ ೆ. ಅಂತ ಪ ಕರಣದ ತ7eೆ ಮತು ಾ: ಾರರ
3ೇ ೆಗ ಂದ ದೃಢಪ]^ರುತ ೆ
PÁgÀt ¸ÀzÀj D¥Á¢vÀ£ÀÄ PÀ®A £ÀA. 103(1), 352, ©.J£ï. J¸ï.
2023 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ®A.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), SC/ST (POA) 2015
ಾC ಅ,ಯ)* ಅಪ ಾಧ ಎಸV ghೆ ೆ ಅಹi!ಾ"ರು#ಾ!ೆ."
7. A careful examination of the prosecution papers and the
charge-sheet laid against the present appellant makes it clear
that the prosecution has made out prima facie case against the
accused for commission of alleged offence. The alleged offence
is punishable with death penalty or imprisonment for life.
Whether the alleged act committed by the accused constitute
offence under Section 103(1) and 352 of BNS 2023 can be
examined only after full-fledged trial. At this stage, it is not
just or proper to express any opinion in this regard. The trial
court has rightly observed that the charge-sheet and its
annexure make out that there are some material for proceeding
against accused for offence under section 103(1) and 352 of
BNS 2023 which is a heinous crime in nature. At this stage,
viewed from any angle, I do not find any legal or factual error
in the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, I answer
Point No.1 in the affirmative.
Regarding Point No.2:
8. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G. BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
