Dismissed¶48

Smt. Rabiya, v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2025CRL.A/830/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail appeal dismissed — Karnataka HC (G Basavaraja J, 20.11.2025), CRL.A 830/2025 under S.14(A)(2) SC/ST (PoA) Act; A-2 Smt. Rabiya, Cr.99/2024 / Spl.C.336/2024 (IPC 364, 302, 120B, 109, 201, 204 r/w 34; SC/ST 3(2)(v)); trial court's S.439 CrPC bail rejection (Criminal Misc. 2024/2024, 05.11.2024) upheld; parity with bailed A-4 rejected; prima facie materials and witness-tampering risk found; no error in impugned order.

What did the court decide?

There are prima facie materials to attract the commission of the alleged offences against the appellant, revealed by the charge-sheet, witness statements, inquest/seizure/spot panchanamas and the Spot Mahazar recording the conspiracy of the accused on 08.02.2024. ¶39

Smt. Rabiya, Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, arraigned as petitioner No.1/accused No.2 in Cr.No.99/2024 (Spl.C.No.336/2024) for offences under IPC Sections 364, 302, 120B, 109, 201, 204 read with 34 and SC/ST (PoA) Act Section 3(2)(v), is entitled to be enlarged on bail after the trial court rejected her regular bail application under section 439 CrPC. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The offence alleged is heinous in nature and punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

¶39

Key takeaways

If the accused is released on bail at this stage, there is a possibility of tampering with or threatening the prosecution witnesses, which will affect society at large.ratio¶39
The release of accused No.4 on bail by the trial court is not a valid ground for granting bail to the appellant on the principle of parity.ratio¶39
The appellant took active part in the commission of the offence and was present at the scene of offence, her role being entirely different from that of accused No.4.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cav judgment of G Basavaraja J, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, delivered 20.11.2025 in CRL.A No. 830 of 2025 — a criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act by Smt. Rabiya (petitioner No.1/accused No.2) praying to be enlarged on bail in Cr.No.99/2024 (Spl.C.No.336/2024), Kanakapura Rural P.S., for offences under IPC Sections 364, 302, 120B, 109, 201, 204 read with 34 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, pending before the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. Her regular bail application under section 439 CrPC had been rejected on 05.11.2024 by the same court in Criminal Misc. No.2024 of 2024 (impugned order). The High Court found prima facie materials against the appellant from the charge-sheet, witness statements, inquest/seizure/spot panchanamas and the Spot Mahazar recording the accused's conspiracy of 08.02.2024; noted the offence is heinous and punishable with death or imprisonment for life; and held that release would risk tampering with or threatening prosecution witnesses. The plea of parity with accused No.4 (released on bail in Crl.Misc.No.736/2024) was rejected: the appellant's role is entirely different — she took active part, was present at the scene, and a specific overt act by her led to the offence (trial court para 12 quoted). Finding no error or illegality in the impugned order, the appeal was dismissed.

¶1

¶2

CRL.A No. 830 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.830 OF 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. RABIYA, W/O.KAISER PASHA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/A. HUSKUR GRAMA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH BENGALURU-562162

¶8

PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NADUVANAHALLI, SOMANAHALLI HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN.562101

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. RANGANATH REDDY, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, MADANAYAKANAHALLI PS, BANGALORE -560001 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001

¶13

MR. MANJUNATH REDDY. S/O. LATE SHIVARAMA REDDY. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. R/A. HIRENAGAVALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK.

¶14

¶15

CRL.A No. 830 of 2025

¶16

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN.562104

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1, R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)

¶19

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER NO.1/ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL WITH RESPECT TO IN CR.NO.99/2024 (SPL.C.NO.336/2024) OF KANAKAPURA RURAL P.S., AT KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 364,302,120(B),109,201,204 R/W 34 OF IPC, U/S 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶22

CAV JUDGMENT

¶23

Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 5^th November 2024 passed in Criminal Misc. No.2024 of 2024 by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (for short "the trial Court").

¶24

Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on the basis of complaint filed by Manjunath Reddy, Nelamangala SubDivision, Madanayakanahalli, Police registered case in Crime No.99 of 2024 for offence under sections 120B, 364, 302, 201

¶25

¶26

CRL.A No. 830 of 2025

¶27

read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On behalf of the accused, application was filed under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail. The same came to be rejected by the trial court by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the rejection of bail application, appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶28

Sri Ranganath Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant is absolutely innocent of the alleged offences and she has not committed any offence. The appellant has got valid, good and tenable defence on her behalf. He would submit that the appellant had no knowledge, reasonable belief nor apprehension of the alleged offences, but she has been falsely implicated in the above case at the instance of the complainant. There is no prime face case made out against the appellant and it is only a fictitious story of the complainant just to make out a semblance of offence against the innocent appellant. Learned Counsel would further submit that it is a true fact that there was dispute between the deceased and accused No.1, who attempted to pacify the issue several times, but on the date of incident, the hot exchange of

¶29

¶30

CRL.A No. 830 of 2025

¶31

words between the accused No.1 and deceased went out of control, and they fought with each other and consequently, the deceased might have succumbed to injuries. The present appellant is in no way concerned or responsible for the alleged incident. Respondent police, without any proper investigation, have implicated the name of the appellant. The only allegation against this appellant is that she being the wife of accused No.2, alleged to have called the deceased in the name of "Deepa", as his ex-lover and made him to arrive at the spot. Except said allegation, there is no other overt act attributed to the present appellant. Moreover, she was not at all aware of the murder plan of the co-accused. She merely called the deceased in the name of "Deepa" as per the instructions of her husband accused No.2. Hence, there is no participation of the present appellant in the death of the deceased. The appellant and the deceased are absolutely strangers to each other and hence there is no ill-will or motive to the appellant to commit such offence as alleged by complainant. The appellant was not aware of the commission of offence by other accused till her arrest, and she came to know about the alleged commission of offence only when the police narrated about the case. Till then she was in dark about the incident. He would submit that the learned Sessions Judge has already granted bail to the accused

¶32

¶33

CRL.A No. 830 of 2025

¶34

No.4, and on the basis of principle of parity, the present appellant is also entitled for bail. The learned Counsel would submit that the appellant is ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions that will be imposed by this court. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.

¶35

On the other hand, Sri B Lakshman, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, would submit that there are prima facie materials to constitute the offence against this appellant. The trial court has properly appreciated the material on record and has dismissed the bail application of the present appellant. Absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court. On all these grounds he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶36

I have examined the materials placed before me. On the basis of complaint filed by Manjunath Reddy, Madanayakanahalli Police have registered a case against the accused in Crime No.99 of 2024 for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer arrested the accused. After investigation, investigating officer has submitted chargesheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

¶37

¶38

CRL.A No. 830 of 2025

¶39

Sections 304, 302, 120 B, 109, 201, 204, read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. Perusal of charge-sheet, statement of witnesses, inquest panchanama, seizure panchanama, spot panchanama, and the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer, and the Spot Mahazar as to the conspiracy of these accused on 08^th February 2024, reveals that there are prima facie materials to attract the commission of alleged offences against the present appellant. The offence alleged is heinous in nature and the same is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. At this stage, if the accused is released on bail, there is possibility of tampering or threatening the prosecution witnesses. It will affect the society at large. With regard to release of accused No.4 on bail by the trial Court is concerned, the same could not be a valid ground for granting bail to the present appellant on the principle of parity. The trial Court has observed the same in the impugned order. The trial court has

¶40

clearly observed that the role of the petitioner is entirely different from the role of accused No.4. The appellant took active part in the commission of offence and was present at the scene of offence. Further, the trial Court has observed that there is specific overt act committed by the present appellant which led to the commission of offence in this case. At

¶41

¶42

CRL.A No. 830 of 2025

¶43

paragraph 12 of the judgment, the trial court has observed as

¶44

under:

¶45

"12. The counsel for the accused persons has submitted that since accused No.4 has already released on bail in Crl.Misc.No.736/2024, they are also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. However, the role of present petitioners is entirely different from the role of accused No.4 in this case. While, the accused No.4 is mainly accused of abetting the other accused persons to commit the murder of deceased Srinivas, the present petitioners took active part in the commission of the offence and were present at the scene of offence. Moreover, there is specific overt act committed by the present petitioners which led to the commission of the offence in this case. The present petitioner No.1 has assaulted deceased Srinivas with knife on the vital part of body which led to the death of deceased Srinivas, while petitioner No.2 enticed the deceased through phone to come over the scene of offence. Infact, the bail application of the accused NO. 1 who was present at the scene of offence along with petitioners and actively participated in the crime along with the present petitioners, is rejected by this court in Crl.Misc.1626/2024 on 20.8.2024. Hence, the present petitioners cannot claim bail on the ground of parity."

¶46

Viewed from any angle, I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶47

O R D E R

¶48

Appeal is dismissed.

¶49

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶50

lnn

Smt. Rabiya, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rabiya, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

State by Ramamurthynagara Vs Smt Mary

Basavaraju K N Vs State of Karnataka

Devaraj. K. P. Vs State of Karnataka

Shivappa a K @ Chikkanahalli Shiva @ Kabaddi Shivu Vs State by

Srikantha @ Ambu Vs the State of Karnataka