Ramesh S/O Annaeppa Nidagundui v. Lakkappa Malagi S/O Ramoji Malagi

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2026CRL.A/100821/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail cancellation appeal by defacto complainant; S.14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; S.483(3) BNSS, 2023; BNS, 2023 offences; Gokak Town PS Crime No.108/2025; III Additional Sessions Judge, Exclusive Special Court, Belagavi; discretionary grant of regular bail upheld; no violation of bail conditions; no compelling reason to cancel bail; appeal dismissed; direction not to threaten witnesses or interfere with investigation; Justice V. Srishananda; High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; bail of respondent Nos.1 to 3 not cancelled. Ancillary direction: respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses nor interfere with the investigation process in any manner. ¶ORDER (i)

Ramesh S/O Annaeppa Nidagundui Vs Lakkappa Malagi S/O Ramoji Malagi — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶ORDER (i)

Issue for consideration

Whether the regular bail granted to respondent Nos.1 to 3 (accused Nos.1 to 3) in Gokak Town PS Crime No.108/2025 by the learned Special Judge, Belagavi should be cancelled / the grant-order set aside, and the accused directed to be arrested. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

An appeal against the grant of bail, though treated as an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC and ST Act, is not an appeal in the eye of law strictly.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

This Court is not an appellate authority over the discretionary order passed by the learned Special Judge unless the discretion is improper and not based on sound and logical reasons.

¶11

Key takeaways

On meticulous perusal of the record, the learned Special Judge had used discretion to grant regular bail to respondent Nos.1 to 3, noting the gravity of the incident and other required parameters.ratio¶9
In the case on hand, there is no complaint that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have violated the conditions of bail.ratio¶12
The grounds urged in the appeal are hardly sufficient to cancel the bail; absent a compelling reason, the discretionary order granting bail will not be cancelled.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under S.14A(2) SC/ST (POA) Act r/w S.483(3) BNSS, 2023 by the defacto complainant seeking setting aside of the order dated 31/10/2025 of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Exclusive Special Court, Belagavi, granting regular bail to accused Nos.1-3 in Gokak Town PS Crime No.108/2025 (offences u/ss.189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 329(4), 115(2), 118(1), 137(2), 308(2), 61(2), 190 BNS, 2023 and ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) SC/ST Act, 1989). Held: (i) an appeal against grant of bail treated under S.14A(2) is not strictly an appeal in the eye of law; (ii) the High Court is not an appellate authority over the Special Judge's discretionary bail order unless the discretion is improper or not based on sound and logical reasons; (iii) no violation of bail conditions was complained of and investigation was still in progress, so the grounds were hardly sufficient to cancel the bail absent a compelling reason. Appeal dismissed; accused directed not to threaten prosecution witnesses or interfere with the investigation.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:488 CRL.A No. 100821 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100821 OF 2025 (U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAMESH S/O ANNAEPPA NIDAGUNDUI AGE 28 YEARS, OCC. TRADER R/O. KANKANWADI VILLAGE TQ RAIBAG, DIST BELAGAVI 591222.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SHIVA SHIRUR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

LAKKAPPA MALAGI S/O RAMOJI MALAGI AGE 44 YEARS, OCC. COMMON MAN R/O. #794 BENACHINAMARADI, GOKAK, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI 591 344.

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶13

RAMOJI S/O PANDIT @ PANDITAPPA DYAGNATTI AGE 34 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BASAVA NAGAR, BENACHINAMARADI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591344.

¶14

BHIMASHI @ BHIMAPPA S/O. BALAPPA PARTHROD AGE 34 YEARS, OCC 34 YEARS, R/O. #344 KOLAVI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI 591344.

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC-D:488 CRL.A No. 100821 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI GOKAK TOWN P.S 580001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R4; SRI. VINAYAKUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR AVINASH A. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 R/W 483(3) OF THE BNSSS, 2023, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH GOKAK TOWN PS CRIME NO.108/2025 PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, AT: BELGAUM AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31/10/2025 PASSED IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO. 1402/2025 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THE EXCLUSIVE SPECIAL COURT, AT: BELAGAVI GRANTING REGULAR BAIL TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 3 IN CONNECTION WITH GOKAK TOWN PS CRIME NO. 108/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS SECTION 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 329(4), 115(2), 118(1) 137(2), 308(2), 61(2), 190 OF BNS ACT. 2023 AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a)) OF SC AND THE ST(PREVENTION OF ATROCITY ACT), 1989 BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT PETITION AND DIRECT THE 4^TH RESPONDENT TO ARREST THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 3/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 3, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC-D:488 CRL.A No. 100821 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶29

Heard Sri. Shiva Shirur, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.4-State and Sri. Avinash M. Angadi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶30

Present appeal is filed by the defacto

¶31

complainant with the following prayer:

¶32

“A. Call for the records in connection with Gokak Town PS Crime No.108/2025 pending before the III Addl. District and Sessions Court, At Belgaum.

¶33

B. Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the order dated 31/10/2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1402/2025 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, The Exclusive Special Court, At: Belagavi granting regular bail to the Respondents No.1 to 3/Accused No.1 to 3 in connection with Gokak Town PS Crime No.108/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 329(4), 115(2), 118(1), 137(2), 308(2), 61(2), 190 of BNS Act, 2023 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of SC and the ST (Prevention of Atrocity Act), 1989

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC-D:488 CRL.A No. 100821 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

by allowing the present petition and direct the 4^th respondent to arrest the respondents No.1 to 3/Accused No.1 to 3 in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶38

Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for

¶39

disposal of the present appeal are as under:

¶40

3.1. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.108/2025 of Gokak Town Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 329(4), 115(2), 118(1), 137(2), 308(2), 61(2), 190 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023¹ and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989² , which is now pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, and still in the investigation stage.

¶41

On contest, respondent Nos.1 to 3 were granted bail by the learned Special Judge.

¶42

1 For short, ‘BNS, 2023’

¶43

2 For short, ‘SC and ST Act’

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:488 CRL.A No. 100821 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum would contend that the learned Special Judge has not properly appreciated the material on record and wrongly granted the bail and hence, sought for cancellation of the bail.

¶48

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.4-State and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 opposed the appeal grounds.

¶49

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶50

On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the learned Special Judge using discretion has granted the regular bail to respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein noting the gravity of the incident and other required parameters.

¶51

Further, it is to be noted that an appeal against the grant of bail though treated as an appeal under Section

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC-D:488 CRL.A No. 100821 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

14A(2) of the SC and ST Act, is not an appeal in the eye of law strictly.

¶56

Nor this Court is an appellate authority over the

¶57

discretionary order passed by the learned Special Judge unless the discretion is improper and not based on sound and logical reasons.

¶58

In the case on hand, there is no complaint that

¶59

the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have violated the conditions of bail.

¶60

According to learned counsel for the appellant, investigation is still in progress and charge sheet is yet to be filed.

¶61

Therefore, grounds urged in the appeal are

¶62

hardly sufficient to cancel the bail unless there is a compelling reason for cancelling the discretionary order of granting the appeal.

¶63

Hence, the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) The appeal is dismissed .

¶66

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC-D:488 CRL.A No. 100821 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

(ii) However, it is made clear that respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses nor interfere with the investigation process in any manner.

¶70

Sd/(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶71

SMM / Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31

Ramesh S/O Annaeppa Nidagundui v. Lakkappa Malagi S/O Ramoji Malagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh S/O Annaeppa Nidagundui v. Lakkappa Malagi S/O Ramoji Malagi

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

Sharanappa Alias Sharanagouda S/O Mahantgouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Life Line Pharmaceuticals, Vs M/S Unicare Pharmaceuticals

Shri. Prajwal S/O Mahantesh Kallannavar Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Sabiha Anegundi W/O Ahamad Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Rahul Basavaraj Sutar (A1) Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Modikar Ambaresh S/O Mekala Ramanna Alian Myakala Ramanna Vs State of Karnataka