Irappa S/O Basappa Hadaginal Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE PSI, POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, GHATAPRABHA POLICE STATION, GHATAPRABHA – 591 306, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶16

SMT. KAVERI HANAMANT TALAWAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR WORK, R/O: KALLOLLI, NOW AT KANNUR – 591 224, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. M.A.HAWALDER, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.H.BALAGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A(2) OF KARNATAKA SC AND ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5949 CRL.A No. 100145 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100150 of 2025

¶22

APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 ON REGULAR BAIL IN GHATAPRABHA P.S. CRIME NO.211/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 103(1), 61(2), 238, 3(5) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SAMHITA 2023 AND UNDER SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2025 IN CRI. MISC. NO.195/2025 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI, ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT TO BE IMPOSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

IN CRL.A NO.100150/2025:

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

SHRI. BAPU FAKRUSAB SHEKH, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: VIDYANAGAR, MUDALAGI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI. PIN CODE: 591 312.

¶26

…APPELLANT

¶27

(BY SRI. S. B. DEYANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH GHATAPRABHA POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BENCH DHARWAD.

¶30

SMT. KAVERI HANAMANT TALAWAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KALLOLLI, PRESENTLY R/O KANNUR, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 591 308.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. M.A.HAWALDER, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.H.BALAGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶33

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON 24.02.2025 AND BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL INSOFAR THE APP/ACC NO.4 MAY PLEASE BE RELEASED ON BAIL IN GHATAPRABHA PS CR. NO.211/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 103(1), 61(2), 238, 3(5) OF BNS AND 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST ACT ON THE

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5949 CRL.A No. 100145 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100150 of 2025

¶35

FILE OF 3^RD ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI HAS BEEN REJECTED IN CRL. MISC. NO.188/2025 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶36

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

¶37

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

Crl.A.No.100145/2025 is filed the appellant –accused No.3 and Crl.A.No.10150/2025 is filed by the appellant – accused No.4. Both appeals are filed challenging the rejection of bail petitions filed by appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 by common order dated 24.02.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.Nos.188/2025 and 195/2025 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, wherein bail petitions of appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 sought in respect of Crime No.211/2024 of Ghatprabha Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’, for short) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5949 CRL.A No. 100145 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100150 of 2025

¶41

1989 (hereinafter referred to as “SC and ST Act” for brevity) came to be rejected.

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the appellant in both

¶43

appeals, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State.

¶44

The case of the prosecution as narrated in Cl.No.17 of the charge sheet is that;

¶45

The deceased –Hanumanth Gopal Talwar is brother

¶46

of accused No.1. Accused No.1 was worked in Life Insurance Company and he was aware that on the death of the insured the nominee will get the insurance amount.

¶47

Accused No.1 has taken insurance in the name of his uncle

¶48

Shankar Maruti Talwar and on his death he got Rs.2,00,000/-(rupees Two Lakhs only) from the Life

¶49

Insurance Company. On coming to know the same, his brother Hanumanth has quarrelled with accused No.1 and accused No.1 has left the village and he used to quarrel with deceased –Hanumanth. Accused No.1 in order to get

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5949 CRL.A No. 100145 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100150 of 2025

¶51

insurance amount has taken insurance policies in the name of deceased –Hanumanth. If deceased -Hanumant

¶52

dies, accused No.1 will get total sum of Rs.20,00,000/(rupees Twenty Lakhs Only). Accused No.1 conspired with accused Nos.2 to 4 to kill the deceased –Hanumanth. In furtherance of said conspiracy on 02.11.2024 accused Nos.1 to 3 went on motor cycle bearing No. KA 22 EA 6447 and dropped accused No.3 in the village and took the deceased –Hanumanth who was drunk to land bearing RS No.285/9 and all accused i.e. accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 were

¶53

talking together and at that time accused No.4 was watching persons passing on the road. At that time, accused No.1 took the iron rod kept in his motor cycle and assaulted on the head of the deceased –Hanumanth with said iron rod twice and thereafter, accused No.2 took the same rod and assaulted the deceased on his head twice and deceased died on the spot. Charge sheet has been filed against accused persons for aforesaid offences. Accused Nos.3 and 4 who are in judicial custody have filed

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5949 CRL.A No. 100145 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100150 of 2025

¶56

bail petitions and same came to be rejected by impugned order which is challenged in these appeals.

¶57

Learned counsel for the appellant in both appeals would contend that except allegation of conspiracy, no overtact is alleged against accused No.3. The overtact alleged against accused No.4 is that he was watching people passing on the road at the time of the incident. There is no recovery material object at instance of accused Nos.3 and 4. As charge sheet is filed these appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 are not required for custodial interrogation. Without considering all these aspects, learned Special Judge has rejected bail petitions of these appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4. With these, they prays to allow appeals and grant bail to appellants – accused Nos.3 and 4.

¶58

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 –State would contend that offences alleged against appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 are heinous offences and one of the offences alleged is

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5949 CRL.A No. 100145 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100150 of 2025

¶60

punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Voluntary statements of accused and charge sheet materials indicate involvement of appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 in commission of murder of the deceased –Hanumath. The motor cycle has been seized. Considering all these aspects, learned Special Judge has rightly rejected bail petitions of appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 by the impugned order. With these, he prays for dismissal of appeals.

¶61

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that offence alleged against appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 are heinous offences. Charge sheet contains prima facile materials against appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4. One of the offences alleged is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The complainant who is wife of the deceased is young lady who lost her husband in the incident. With these, she prays for dismissal of appeals.

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5949 CRL.A No. 100145 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100150 of 2025

¶63

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused impugned orders and charge sheet materials placed on record.

¶64

On perusal of Cl.No.17 of the charge sheet, no specific overtact is alleged against accused No.3. Accused No.3 was not present at the spot at the time of the incident. Accusation against accused No.3 is that he conspired with other accused to kill the deceased.

¶65

The accusation against accused No.4 is that he was on the spot at time of the incident and he kept watch on the road at the time of the incident. No overtact is alleged against accused No.4 of assaulting the deceased – Hanumanth, overtact of assault is alleged against accused Nos.1 and 2. The other accusation against accused No.4 is that he conspired with other accused to kill the deceased – Hanumanth.

¶66

As charge sheet is filed these appellants –

¶67

accused Nos.3 and 4 are not required for custodial interrogation. Without considering all these aspects,

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5949 CRL.A No. 100145 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100150 of 2025

¶69

learned Special Judge has erred in passing impugned orders which requires interference by this Court. Appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 have made out grounds for setting aside impugned orders and grant of bail with conditions.

¶70

In the result, the following

¶71

ORDER

¶72

i. Both appeals are allowed .

¶73

ii. The impugned order dated 24.02.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.Nos.188/2025 and 195/2025 by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi is set aside.

¶74

iii. Appellants -accused Nos.3 and 4 are granted bail in Crime No.211/2024 of Ghatprabha Police Station subject to the following conditions:

¶75

a) Appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 shall execute a personal bond for a

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5949 CRL.A No. 100145 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 100150 of 2025

¶78

sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶79

b) Appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶80

c) Appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 shall appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶81

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶82

DSP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Irappa S/O Basappa Hadaginal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irappa S/O Basappa Hadaginal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

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

Hanumanth S/O Siddappa Malladad Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Bapu Fakrusab Shekh Vs the State of Karnataka

Kumar Aliyas Kumya Vs the State of Karnataka