The appellants have sought for enlarging them on bail

in Sessions Case No.793/2019 on the file of the learned

Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Bidar, for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302,

307, 324, 342, 504, 506 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the IPC”)

arising out of Crime No.85/2019 registered by Manthal

Police, Bidar.

2. The summary of the charge sheet allegation is that,

in

connection

with

a

small

type

of

stampede

on

13-10-2019 at about 7.30 p.m., on the occasion of the

3

procession of goddess Bhavani in Sirgur village, an

altercation had taken place between accused No.2 - Krishna

Illale (appellant No.2 herein) and Tukaram Mugale, Rahul

Bhosle. In that connection, on 14-10-2019 at about 7.00

p.m., all the accused persons, joined by other accused,

forming an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their

common object assaulted deceased Basavaraj Hanamanth

Chandakale with deadly weapons like iron rod, wooden

clubs and they also assaulted CW-8 who rushed to the

rescue of deceased Basavaraj. In the said process, the

accused caused the murder of deceased Basavaraj and

inflicted injuries upon CW-8. However, the other people

including eyewitness who are CW-9, CW-10, CW-11,

CW-16, CW-17, CW-18 and CW-19 pacified the quarrel.

With this, the charge sheet alleges the accused of the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302,

307, 324, 342, 504, 506 read with section 149 of the IPC

and Sections 3(1) (r), (s) (x), 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled

4

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as

“SC/ST (PA) Amendment Act, 2015”).

3. Admittedly, the present prayer for bail is the third

successive bail application of the present appellants. The

earlier petitions filed by the present appellants came to be

rejected by this Court in Criminal Petition No.201554/2019,

on 19.02.2020 and in Criminal Petition No.200620/2020 on

09-08-2021.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants in his argument

submitted that, the only change in the circumstance with

respect to the appellant No.2 (accused No.5) is that, he is a

mentally retarded person with a disability of 75%, as such,

always requires the assistance of other person to be with

him. Thus, continuing him in judicial custody without

providing him any medical assistance is uncalled for, as

such, deserves his enlargement on bail. He further submits

5

that though the alleged mental retardness was by birth and

the documents which he has produced now could have been

produced at the earliest point of time, however, the learned

counsels appearing for the present appellants previously,

did not secure those documents from the accused and

produce them.

5. The prosecution has filed its Statement of

objections, opposing the prayer for bail by appellants

(accused) stating that, direct overt act has been alleged

against the present appellants and the alleged offences are

very heinous in nature including murder. The incident has

been witnessed by eye witnesses some of them are charge

sheet witnesses also, as such, the prayer for grant of bail

does not deserve to be allowed.

However, the learned High Court Government Pleader

since having remained absent, no argument was addressed

on behalf of the State, in the matter.

6

6. A perusal of the materials placed before this Court

would go to show that, in the charge sheet, the overt act

has been mainly attributed against the present appellants.

It is stated that, it is these people who are said to have

made use of the weapons like steel rods, wooden clubs, and

by using the same, they are said to have assaulted the

deceased Basavaraj Hanamanth Chandakale as well as

CW-8 who is said to have rushed to the rescue of the said

Basavaraj Hanamanth Chandakale. The said CW-8 is one

among the eye witnesses to the incident. Further, he is

also an injured witness. According to the prosecution, the

charge shee