Chavali Santu @ Santhu Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

SHRUTHI.T.K, W/O LATE SANTHOSH KUMAR. K,

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33606 CRL.A No. 540 of 2026

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

@ KANUMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, AGE 36 YEARS, NEAR KHADI KENDRA, NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE - 577 004.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA., HCGP FOR R1; SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN., ADVOCATE FOR R2 - DEFACTO COMPLAINANT)

¶20

¶21

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT HEREIN ON BAIL/INTERIM BAIL TO UNDERGO MEDICAL TREATMENT/OPERATION FOR REMOVAL OF BULLET IN RELATION TO MATTER BEARING CRIME NO.103/2025 NOW SPL.CASE NO.346/2025 REGISTERED WITH THE VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, DAVANGERE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 61(2), 103 (1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(30, 238(a) READ WITH SECTION0.190 OF BNSS, 2023, AND SECTION.27(1) AND (5) OF THE INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959 AND SEC.3(2)(v), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST ACT 1989, PENDING ON FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DAVANGERE.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶23

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:33606 CRL.A No. 540 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.1 seeking to set aside the order dated 15.10.2025 passed in Spl.C.No.346/2025 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere and to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.103/2025 registered by Vidyanagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 238(a), 61(2) r/w Section 190 of BNS, 2023 and Section 27(1) and (5) of Indian Arms Act, 1959.

¶30

The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is a victim of Police negligence and indiscriminate firing. Consequently, the appellant had sustained injury on his right knee with a bullet lodged inside his leg. There is medical emergency to the appellant and the said bullet has to be removed from his knee through proper surgery.

¶31

In support of the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel made available multiple reports of the hospitals and prays to grant the relief as prayed for in the appeal.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:33606 CRL.A No. 540 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed in granting the relief as prayed for in the appeal and stated that the appellant is a rowdy element and he has committed heinous offence. The appellant has committed murder of one Santhosh Kumar by conspiring with others. The manner in which the appellant hatched the plan and committed murder would indicate its gravity and seriousness. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant the relief as prayed for in the appeal.

¶36

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State adopted the argument advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the charge sheet and also medical records made available by the learned Senior Counsel, I am of the considered opinion that if the appellant is enlarged on bail for a limited period considering his medical emergency, it would meet the ends of justice. It is needless to state that merit of the case is not required to be discussed at

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:33606 CRL.A No. 540 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

this stage since this appeal has been considered on the ground

¶42

of medical emergency. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) The appeal is allowed .

¶45

ii) The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.103/2025 of respondent - Police, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶46

a) The appellant is released on bail for a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶47

b) The appellant shall surrender before the concerned Court immediately after expiry of six months.

¶48

c) The appellant shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶49

d) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates.

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:33606 CRL.A No. 540 of 2026

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

iii) In case, the appellant violates any of the conditions stated above, the liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶54

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶55

NR/-

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Chavali Santu @ Santhu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chavali Santu @ Santhu 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

Smt v Kalavathi Vs Smt v C Vasantha Kumari

Sri S. Nagaraja Vs Smt v C Vasanthakumari

Sri. Shyamsundar Vs M/S. Apple Nutra Pharmaceuticals

Chandu @ R C Chandu Vs the State of Karnataka

S. D. Lokesha Vs the State of Karnataka by

Thomas Kutty Joseph Vs Tata Capital Financial Serivices Ltd.