[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Nizamuddin S/O Mohammed Hussainsaba vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4012
CRL.A No. 100038 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100038 OF 2026
(U/S.14A(2) OF SC & ST ACT)
BETWEEN:
NIZAMUDDIN S/O. MOHAMMED HUSSAINSABA
@ HUSSAINSABA GORAVALI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: WELDING WORK,
R/O. NIRMITI KENDRA, KOPPAL, TQ. & DIST. KOPPAL,
PRESENT R/O. SAILAPURA ONI, KOPPAL,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN THROUGH KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION,
RUDRAYYA KALMATH
Location: High Court REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
2. NINGAJJA S/O. YAMANAPPA THANAKANAKAL,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. WARD NO.16, KURUBARA ONI,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2)
OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4012
CRL.A No. 100038 of 2026
HC-KAR
OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.4 (ACCUSED NO.3 AS PER
CHARGESHEET) ON REGULAR BAIL IN SPL.C. (SC/ST)
NO.21/2025 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.85/2025 OF KOPPAL
TOWN POLICE STATION) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 103(1), 61(1) READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF
THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, BY SETTING ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL, IN SPL.C.(SC/ST)
NO.21/2025 BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
Heard Sri J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for appellant and
Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 State.
2. This criminal appeal is filed under Section 14A(2)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeking to release the
appellant/accused No.3 on bail in Spl.C.(SC/ST) No.21/2025
(arising out of Crime No.85/2025 of Koppal Town Police
Station) for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1),
61(1) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4012
HC-KAR
2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by
setting aside the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, in
Spl.C.(SC/ST) No.21/2025 by allowing this criminal appeal.
3. It is the case of prosecution that the son of the
complainant, who is deceased and juvenile who is minor girl
were loving each other, but the said juvenile was intended
to marry accused No.1. Therefore, accused No.1 along with
accused Nos.2 to 4 have made conspiracy to eliminate the
deceased; therefore, made a plan. Accordingly, committed
murder of the deceased on 03.08.2025 at 07.30 p.m. The
accused and the deceased son of complainant are belonging
to the scheduled tribe community. Therefore, they had been
charge sheeted for the offences stated above.
4. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the
only role shown in the charge sheet against the appellant is
that he has made conspiracy with accused No.1 and not
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4012
HC-KAR
more than that. Further submitted that accused Nos.2 and 4
charge sheeted accused were released on bail by the
learned Sessions Court by order dated 17.12.2025, in Spl.C.
(SC/ST) No.21/2025. Therefore, prays to release this
appellant also on the ground of parity.
5. On the other hand learned HCGP vehemently
opposes for grant of bail and prays to dismiss the appeal.
6. Learned Special Judge in Spl.C. (SC/ST)
No.21/2025 has released accused Nos.2 and 4 on the
reason that they have not been furnished with the
information of grounds of arrest. Therefore, only on this
ground the learned Special Judge has released accused
Nos.2 to 4 by following the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as discussed in its order stated supra.
7. Learned Special Judge has dismissed the bail
application of this appellant on the ground that the
appellant was informed the grounds of arrest properly.
Therefore, rejected the bail application.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4012
HC-KAR
8. Upon considering the grounds urged on parity,
accused Nos.2 and 4 were released on bail on technical
ground that they were not informed with the ground of
arrest properly. Therefore, they were released and the
learned Special Judge has not discussed anything regarding
the gist of the charge sheet materials and offence alleged
against them. The appellant though is made accused No.3
in the charge sheet, but the allegation against the said
appellant is the common intention along with accused No.1
and participation in the crime. Though there is no overt-act
alleged against the appellant herein that he has committed
the offence, but the offence of criminal conspiracy and
sharing common intention is equivalent to the role of
accused directly who has assaulted the deceased.
9. It is the case of prosecution that all have hatched
a criminal conspiracy and shared common intention.
Therefore, the role played by accused Nos.1 and 2 are not
to be segregated. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that
if at this stage the appellant is released on bail, the chances
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4012
HC-KAR
of absconding and fleeing away from justice is more; in
such an event the trial would be hampered. Therefore, this
Court is of the opinion not to release the appellant/accused
No.3 on bail. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. However, the learned Sessions Judge is directed
to expedite the trial and dispose of the case as early as
possible by following the decision of the Hon'be Supreme
Court in the case of Akil @ Javed vs. State of NCT of
Delhi reported in 2013 (7) SCC 125 and State of U.P. vs.
Shambhu Nath Singh and Others reported in 2001(4)
SCC 667.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
MRK
CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
