Mohammed Juned Vs the State of Karnataka

MOHAMMED JUNED S/O SIRAJ SHARIEF, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, EMPLOYED IN PRIVATE FIRM, PRESENT R/O R.M.L. NAGARA, UNITY HALL, SHADI MAHAL CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201,

¶11

PERMANENT R/O 3^RD CROSS, MAHARNAMI BYLU, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKESHAV SRINIVASAN., ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY: OLD TOWN POLICE STATION, BHADRAVATHI, BHADRAVATHI TOWN CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

SRIKANTA S/O MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC. PAINTING WORK, R/O JAI BHEEMA NAGARA,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:30483 CRL.A No. 725 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BHADRAVATHI TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI. K., HCGP FOR R1)

¶24

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 26.02.2026 IN SPLC.NO.5036/2023 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED NO.4 ON BAIL IN CR.NO.64/2021 OF OLD TOWN POLICE STATION, BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDG,E SHIVAMOGGA IN SPL.C.NO.5036/2021 (CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE OFENCES P/U/S 504, 323, 324, 115, 307, 506, 326, 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned

¶29

HCGP for the State and perused the material on record.

¶30

Learned HCGP informs that respondent No.2

¶31

has been notified. However, there is no representation.

¶32

The Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Bhadravathi, has

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30483 CRL.A No. 725 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

rejected the appellant's prayer for bail vide order dated 26.02.2026, in Spl.C.5036/2023.

¶36

Appellant / accused No.4 is before this Court seeking to set aside the impugned order and to enlarge him on bail.

¶37

Crl.A.No.1577/2021 preferred by accused Nos.3 and 4 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2021 and both the accused were granted bail on certain conditions. Appellant / accused No.4, since remained absent before the trial Court, was secured under NBW and taken into custody on 12.01.2026 and since then is in custody.

¶38

Appellant along with 4 other accused is facing trial before the Special Court for the offences punishable under Section 504, 323, 324, 115, 307, 506, 326, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30483 CRL.A No. 725 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The merits of the case need not be adverted to, as this court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, granted bail to the appellant in Crl.A.No.1577/2021. The trial Court, while rejecting the

¶42

prayer for bail vide impugned order has observed that the appellant / accused No.4 was regularly absent and in spite of direction to the learned counsel appearing for accused No.4 to keep him present, he was absent on 17.12.2025 and no exemption application was filed and hence, on 17.12.2025 NBW was issued and he was produced under NBW on 12.01.2026 and taken to judicial custody, rejecting his application filed under Section 72(2) of BNSS, 2023.

¶43

The learned counsel would submit that, the appellant was unwell on 17.12.2025 and on the previous dates and since his counsel was also not present on 17.12.2025 and as there was no representation, NBW was issued. He submits that appellant has not absconded, on the other hand, he was available and NBW has been

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30483 CRL.A No. 725 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

executed on 12.01.2026 itself. He submits that the absence of the appellant before the trial court was unintentional and henceforth, he will regularly appear before the trial court without fail.

¶47

In view of the submission of the learned counsel that henceforth, the appellant will regularly appear before the trial Court, relief sought can be granted making it clear that no further indulgence shall be shown to the

¶48

appellant. Accordingly, the following:-

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i) The appeal is allowed .

¶51

ii) The order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the

¶52

Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, (Sitting at Bhadravathi) in

¶53

Spl.C.No.5036/2023 is set aside.

¶54

iii) The appellant / accused No.4 is ordered to be released on bail in Spl.C.No.5036/2023 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga,

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:30483 CRL.A No. 725 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

(Crime No.64/2021 of Bhadravathi Town Police Station), subject to following conditions:-

¶59

He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶60

He shall furnish proof of his residential address and furnish mobile number and inform the I.O/Court, if there is change in the address/mobile number.

¶61

He shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶62

He shall not involve in any criminal activities.

¶63

He shall appear before the trial Court regularly on all dates of hearing.

¶64

Any breach of the above conditions, shall result in cancellation of bail.

¶65

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶66

LDC:List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Mohammed Juned v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Juned 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

Sri Lokesh Alias Anne Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Asghar @ Munna Vs State by Chamarajanagara Town Police

K a Sayyad Anwar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Doddamanjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Praveen T Vs the State of Karnataka

Sudhir G Angur Vs Anekal Police Station