Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 11889
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100038 OF 2026 (U/S.14A(2) OF SC & ST ACT)
BETWEEN:
N @ I Z H A U M S U S D A D IN I S N A S B / A O . G M O O RA H V A A M L M I, E D HUSSAINSABA AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: WELDING WORK, R PR /O ES . E N N IR T M R I / T O I . K S E A N I D LA R P A U , R K A O P O P N A I L , , K T O Q P . P & A L D , I ST.KOPPAL, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231.(BY SRI J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE.)…APPELLANT
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DMRLoDfoU i h Ag cKa DLi aar t RL t a wri Il noA a lKy na Y d A t:Y s aB R H i A k g e J ia nUKg n, e h c NA d h LC b Mo y uArTtH T R H H E IG P R . H O B U C Y G O S H U T R K A T O T E B P P U P A I U L L B D T L I O I N C W G P , N R D O P H O S A L E R I C C W U E A T S D O T . R A , TION,
2. NINGAJJA S/O. YAMANAPPA THANAKANAKAL, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. WARD NO.16, KURUBARA ONI, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231.…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;NOTICE TO R2 SERVED.)
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
MRK C Li T s - t A N N o .: 1 Sl No.: 28
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2)OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.4 (ACCUSED NO.3 AS PER CHARGESHEET) ON REGULAR BAIL IN SPL.C. (SC/ST) NO.21/2025 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.85/2025 OF KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 103(1), 61(1) READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL, IN SPL.C.(SC/ST) NO.21/2025 BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
Heard Sri J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 State.
2. This criminal appeal is filed under Section 14A(2)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeking to release the appellant/accused No.3 on bail in Spl.C.(SC/ST) No.21/2025 (arising out of Crime No.85/2025 of Koppal Town Police Station) for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(1) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by setting aside the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, in Spl.C.(SC/ST) No.21/2025 by allowing this criminal appeal.
3. It is the case of prosecution that the son of the complainant, who is deceased and juvenile who is minor girl were loving each other, but the said juvenile was intended to marry accused No.1. Therefore, accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 4 have made conspiracy to eliminate the deceased; therefore, made a plan. Accordingly, committed murder of the deceased on 03.08.2025 at 07.30 p.m. The accused and the deceased son of complainant are belonging to the scheduled tribe community. Therefore, they had been charge sheeted for the offences stated above.
4. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the only role shown in the charge sheet against the appellant is that he has made conspiracy with accused No.1 and not more than that. Further submitted that accused Nos.2 and 4 charge sheeted accused were released on bail by the learned Sessions Court by order dated 17.12.2025, in Spl.C. (SC/ST) No.21/2025. Therefore, prays to release this appellant also on the ground of parity.
5. On the other hand learned HCGP vehemently opposes for grant of bail and prays to dismiss the appeal.
6. Learned Special Judge in Spl.C. (SC/ST)No.21/2025 has released accused Nos.2 and 4 on the reason that they have not been furnished with the information of grounds of arrest. Therefore, only on this ground the learned Special Judge has released accused Nos.2 to 4 by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed in its order stated supra.
7. Learned Special Judge has dismissed the bail application of this appellant on the ground that the appellant was informed the grounds of arrest properly.Therefore, rejected the bail application.
8. Upon considering the grounds urged on parity, accused Nos.2 and 4 were released on bail on technical ground that they were not informed with the ground of arrest properly. Therefore, they were released and the learned Special Judge has not discussed anything regarding the gist of the charge sheet materials and offence alleged against them. The appellant though is made accused No.3 in the charge sheet, but the allegation against the said appellant is the common intention along with accused No.1 and participation in the crime. Though there is no overt-act alleged against the appellant herein that he has committed the offence, but the offence of criminal conspirac
