Dismissed¶74

Hanumanth S/O Siddappa Malladad v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Apr 2025CRL.A/100027/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Dharwad Bench, Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, 03.04.2025) dismisses bail appeals CRL.A No.100027/2025 (accused No.5, Hanumanth Malladad) and CRL.A No.100641/2024 (accused No.1, Parasappa Karadi) against rejection of bail in Spl. C. No.139/2022 (Crime No.178/2022, Bagalkot Rural PS; double murder; ss.143, 147, 148, 363, 302, 201, 120(B), 109 r/w 149 IPC and s.3(2)(v) SC/ST POA Act): hostility of eye-witness PW.8/CW.13 alone is no ground for bail, his s.164 CrPC statement awaits trial; prima facie case made out; risk of witness tampering and flight; Rohit Bishnoi (2023 SCC OnLine SC 870) relied on.

What did the court decide?

Merely because one of the eye-witnesses has not supported the case of the prosecution is not a ground for grant of bail. ¶69

Hanumanth S/O Siddappa Malladad Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶74

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders of the learned 2nd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote in Special Case No.139/2022 rejecting the bail applications of Accused No.5 (dated 25.06.2024) and Accused No.1 (dated 18.07.2024) ought to be set aside and bail granted to the appellants. +1 more

¶46

Court's answer

On perusal of the charge sheet there is a prima facie case against the appellant-accused No.5; although some material witnesses have been examined, other prosecution witnesses remain to be examined and the trial is at the fag end; at this stage, grant of bail carries the risk of tampering with prosecution witnesses, fleeing from justice and non-availability for the further trial.

¶72

Ratio / Principle

Merely because one of the eye-witnesses has not supported the case of the prosecution is not a ground for grant of bail.

¶69

Key takeaways

Even though CW.13-PW.8, the eye-witness, has turned hostile, his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C by the learned Judicial Magistrate requires to be considered at the trial.ratio¶70
Considering all these aspects, the appellants-accused Nos.1 and 5 have not made out any grounds to set aside the impugned orders or for grant of bail; accordingly, both the criminal appeals are dismissed.ratio¶74

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeals under S.14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 r/w S.439 CrPC — accused Nos.1 and 5 challenged orders of the learned 2nd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote in Spl. C. No.139/2022 (orders dated 18.07.2024 and 25.06.2024) rejecting their bail applications in Crime No.178/2022 of Bagalkot Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 363, 302, 201, 120(B), 109 r/w 149 IPC and S.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act — alleged abduction and murder of Rajeshwari and Vishwanath on 30.09.2022 and throwing of bodies into the Krishna river. Eye-witness CW.13 (driver of the TATA ACE) examined as PW.8 turned hostile. Held: merely because one eye-witness has not supported the prosecution is not a ground for grant of bail; his Section 164 CrPC statement requires consideration at the trial (relying on Rohit Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 870); charge sheet discloses a prima facie case against accused No.5; trial at the fag end; grant of bail would risk tampering with witnesses, flight from justice and non-availability for trial. Appeals dismissed despite judicial custody exceeding two years.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5932 CRL.A No. 100027 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100641 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100027 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100641 OF 2024

¶7

IN CRL.A NO.100027/2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HANUMANTH S/O. SIDDAPPA MALLADAD, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BEVINAMATTI, BAGALKOT TALUK AND DISTRICT – 587 112.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA V. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH BAGALKOT RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶15

LAXMI BAI NELAGI W/O. ASHOK, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O: BEVINAMATTI, BAGALKOT TALUK AND DISTRICT – 587 112.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA ACT AMENDMENT ACT) 2015 R/W 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED 2^ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN SPL. C. NO. 139/2022 DATED 25.06.2024 AGAINST APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5932 CRL.A No. 100027 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100641 of 2024

¶20

WITH RESPECT TO THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 178/2022 BY THE BAGALKOT RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 363, 302, 201, 120B, 109 READ WITH 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(2) (V) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015.

¶21

IN CRL.A NO.100641/2024

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

PARASAPPA S/O. LAXMAPPA KARADI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BEVINAMATTI, BAGALKOT TALUK AND DISTRICT – 587 112.

¶24

…APPELLANT

¶25

(BY SRI K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA V. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH BAGALKOT RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶28

LAXMI BAI NELAGI W/O. ASHOK, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O: BEVINAMATTI, BAGALKOT TALUK AND DISTRICT – 587 112.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA ACT AMENDMENT ACT) 2015 R/W 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 2^ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN SPL. C. NO. 139/2022 AGAINST APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 WITH RESPECT TO THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 178/2022 BY THE BAGALKOT RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 363, 302, 201, 120B, 109 READ WITH 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2) (V) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO RELEASE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5932 CRL.A No. 100027 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100641 of 2024

¶33

THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

Crl.A. No.100027/2025 is filed by accused No.5 and

¶37

Crl.A. No.100641/2024 is filed by accused No.1. The accused No.5 has challenged the order dated 25.06.2024 and accused No.1 has challenged the order dated 18.07.2024, both passed in Special Case No.139/2022, where under the bail applications sought in respect of Crime No.178/2022 of Bagalkote Rural Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 363, 302, 201, 120(B), 109 r/w. Section 149 of Indian Penal Code [ hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short ] and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [ hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST (P.O.A) Act’ for short ] came to be rejected.

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5932 CRL.A No. 100027 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100641 of 2024

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the appellantsaccused Nos.1 and 5 in both the appeals and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶40

The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on 28.9.2022 at 6.00 p.m. when complainant and his wife came back to home, another daughter Chaitra informed that Rajeshwari went out of the house stating that she is going to attend second nature call and did not return. Complainant and his wife have searched for their daughter - Rajeshwari and enquired with their relatives, but she was not traced. Therefore, missing complaint was filed by complainant, which came to be registered in Bagalkot Rural Police station Crime No.178/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and Investigation was conducted. During the course of investigation, it is revealed that daughter of complainant-Rajeshwari was in love with Vishwanath belonging to Hindu Walmiki caste

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5932 CRL.A No. 100027 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100641 of 2024

¶42

and the same was not acceptable to the father of Rajeshwari i.e. accused No.1. Hence, all the accused on the instigation of accused No.1 traced Rajeshwari and kept her in fruit shop of accused No.7 near Shirur Agasi on Bagalkot - Hunagud road. On the basis of voluntary statement of accused - Ravi, it is revealed that accused No.1 conspired with other accused to kill Rajeshwari and Vishwanath. Hence, all the accused except accused Nos.1 and 3 called Vishwanath to Naragund on the pretext of arranging marriage and took Rajeshwari on the pretext that they will get her marriage with Vishwanath. On 30.9.2022, they picked up Vishwanath from Naragund and assaulted both, thereby committed their murder and thrown dead bodies in Krishna River between Alamatti and Hungund road. Investigating officer has completed the investigation filed charge sheet.

¶43

The appellants who are accused Nos.1 and 5

¶44

are in judicial custody have sought for grant of bail and

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5932 CRL.A No. 100027 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100641 of 2024

¶46

the same has been rejected by the impugned orders. The said two orders are challenged in these two appeals.

¶47

Learned counsel for the appellants-accused Nos.1 and 5 in both the appeals would contend that the accused No.1 had earlier challenged the rejection of his bail application in Crl.A No.100107/2023 and it came to be dismissed, wherein it is observed that the material witness is CW.13 and he is the driver of TATA ACE vehicle and he has given the statement before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and he is the eye-witness to the incident. He submits that CW.13 has been examined as PW.8 and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the material witnesses have been examined and the trial is at the fag end and only 4 to 5 witnesses are yet to be examined. The appellants-accused Nos.1 and 5 are in judicial custody for more than two years. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellants-accused Nos.1 and 5.

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5932 CRL.A No. 100027 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100641 of 2024

¶49

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State would submit that the case involves of double murder and out of the prosecution witnesses examined, PW.1 to 7, 9, 13, 17 and 20 have supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the trial is going on and if the appellants are granted bail, there are chances of tampering the prosecution witnesses and they could not be available for further trial. Considering the said aspects, the learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail applications. With this, he prayed for dismissing the appeal.

¶50

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that it is the case of killing of two innocent persons. The accused No.1 is a father of one of the deceased namely Rajeshwari. He further submits that merely because one of the eye-witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution, is not a ground for grant of bail. On that ground, he placed reliance on the decision of the

¶51

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Bishnoi Vs.

¶52

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5932 CRL.A No. 100027 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100641 of 2024

¶53

State of Rajasthan and Another¹ . With this he prayed

¶54

for dismissal of the appeal.

¶55

Having heard the learned counsels and learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has perused the impugned orders and the chargesheet materials.

¶56

On careful perusal of charge sheet material, it would go to show that complainant-accused No.1 is belongs to Hindu Kuruba community and Vishwanath belongs to Hindu Walmiki community. Complainantaccused No.1 was aware of his daughter being in love with Vishwanath and he was not happy of his daughter marrying to Vishwanath. However, daughter of

¶57

complainant was insisting to perform her marriage with Vishwanath. The daughter of complainant Rajeshwari left the house with an intention to join Vishwanath, who was residing in Kasaragod. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 went in a car to Mangalore and traced Rajeshwari on 27.9.2022, further they brought her back and kept in fruit shop of

¶58

1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 870

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5932 CRL.A No. 100027 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100641 of 2024

¶60

accused No.7 situated near Shirur Agasi on Bagalkot - Hangund road and she was kept in the shop on 28.9.2022 and 29.9.2022. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 5 and juvenile offender Beerappa conspired with each other and pretended before Rajeshwari that they will get her marriage performed with Vishwanath. They called Vishwanath over phone and asked him to come to Naragund. They carried Rajeshwari in TATA ACE bearing No.KA-29/7820 from fruit shop of accused No.7. Thereafter, Bolero pickup van bearing No.KA-36/7807 belongs to fruit shop owner was boarded by accused Nos.2, 3 and 7. They picked up Vishwanath in front of Naragund bus stand on 30.9.2022 and carried him in bolero vehicle by asking the accused, who were in TATA ACE vehicle to follow them. Accused No.3 after getting down from Bolero vehicle picked up two stones and assaulted Vishwanath, who was caught hold by accused No.2 and juvenile offender Beerappa Dalwai. The daughter of complainant-Rajeshwari, who was in TATA ACE vehicle, along with accused No.4 and saw accused assaulting

¶61

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5932 CRL.A No. 100027 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100641 of 2024

¶62

Vishwanath in the head light of vehicle, questioned about assaulting Vishwanath and brought in vehicle by deceiving

¶63

on the promise to get her marriage performed with Vishwanath. Thereafter, accused Nos.4 and 5 have strangulated neck of Rajeshwari and committed her murder. The driver of TATA ACE vehicle–CW.13 refused to accompany them and by paying rent, he was relieved. All the accused while they were on the way in Bolero vehicle found Vishwanath was still alive and lying on the road. At the instance of accused No.3, accused Nos.2 and 4 and juvenile offender Beerappa Dalwai caught hold both his hands and legs and accused No.5 by means of stone assaulted on the private part of Vishwanath, due to which he died. Thereafter, they undressed Rajeshwari and Vishwanath only by leaving innerwear and threw their dead bodies in Krishan river of on N.H.-50, Alamatti and Hungund road.

¶64

The appellant-accused No.1 earlier had filed an appeal challenging the rejection of his bail application in

¶65

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5932 CRL.A No. 100027 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100641 of 2024

¶66

Crl.A. No.100107/2023 and it came to be dismissed. In this successive bail application, the ground urged is that the material witnesses are examined, out of them, CW.13 who is the eye-witness has been examined as PW.8 has not supported the case of the prosecution. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Bishnoi ( supra) has observed as under;

¶67

“42. While we are conscious of the fact that a Court considering the grant of bail must not engage in an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, we are of the view that the High Court while passing the impugned orders has not taken into account even a single material aspect of the case. Instead, the High Court referred only to the testimony of one hostile witness in the trial and on the basis thereof, exercised its discretion to grant bail in an erroneous manner. The High Court has lost sight of the aforesaid vital aspects of the case and granted bail to the respondents-accused by passing very cryptic and casual orders, de hors cogent reasoning.”

¶68

Merely because, one of the eye-witness has not

¶69

supported the case of the prosecution, is not a ground for grant of bail. Even though, CW.13-PW.8 the eye-witness has turned hostile, there is a statement of him recorded

¶70

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5932 CRL.A No. 100027 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100641 of 2024

¶71

under Section 164 of Cr.P.C by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the same requires to be considered at the trial.

¶72

On perusal of the chargesheet, there is a prima facie case against the appellant-accused No.5. Even though, some material witnesses are examined, there are other prosecution witnesses who are to be examined by the prosecution. The trial is at the fag end and only some witnesses are required to be examined by the prosecution. At this stage, if the appellants are granted bail, there are chances of tampering the prosecution witnesses, flee from Justice and not available for further trial.

¶73

Considering all these aspects, the appellants-

¶74

accused Nos.1 and 5 have not made out any grounds to set aside the impugned orders and grant of bail. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed .

¶75

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶76

PJ/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Hanumanth S/O Siddappa Malladad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumanth S/O Siddappa Malladad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saifulla S/O a Rawoofsab, Vs R. Ramachar S/O Hanumanth Achar

Rajashekar S/O Shanmukhappa Tenginakai, Vs Kutubuddin S/O Jafarsab Dandoti

Smt. Girija Basavaraj Ajawan Vs Smt. Shobha W/O Somashekar Betageri

Shri Bapu Fakrusab Shekh Vs the State of Karnataka

Kumar Aliyas Kumya Vs the State of Karnataka

Irappa S/O Basappa Hadaginal Vs the State of Karnataka