CRL.A/649/2026 of SRI ABHI @ ABHISHEK Vs STATE BY on 9 July 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 649 OF 2026 (U/S 14(A) (2))

BETWEEN:

1.

SRI. ABHI @ ABHISHEK,

S/O SHANMUKHAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

R/O EMMEDODDI,

DODDERI VILLAGE,

BHADRAVATHI TALUK.

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 301.

2.

ATEESH,

S/O. SHANMUKHAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

R/O EMMEDODDI,

DODDERI VILLAGE,

BHADRAVATHI TALUK.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. SAPPANNAVAR BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE BY

RURAL POLICE STATION,

BHADRAVATHI,

REPRESENTED BY

SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

Digitally

signed by

SUSHMA

LAKSHMI B

S

Location:

High Court

of Karnataka

HC-KAR

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BENGALURU – 560 001.

2.

SMT. VEDAVATHI,

W/O LATE. SHANTHAKUMAR,

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

HOUSEWIFE BY OCCUPATION,

R/O DODDERI VILLAGE,

BHADRAVATHI TALUK,

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 301.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY., HCGP FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED., ADVOCATE)

----

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT

BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2026 AND ALLOW THE

APPELLANTS/ACCUSED

NOs.2

AND

NO.3

ON

BAIL

IN

SPL.C.NO.5011/2025,

ARISING

OUT

OF

CR.NO.14/2025.

REGISTERED BY BHADRAVATHI RURAL P.S., PENDING BEFORE

THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 352, 351(2), 103(1), 3(5), 126(2) AND SEC.55 OF BNS, 2023, U/S

3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, AND U/S 3 AND 25(1B) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959.

THIS APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

18.06.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF

JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the appellants who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in Cr.No.14/2025 filed by the respondent-Police for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2), 103(1), 126(2), 55, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act, 2015 and Sections 3, 25(1B) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959.

2.

Case of the prosecution is that Smt.Vedavathi w/o Shanthakumar filed a complaint stating that her husband belongs to the Bhovi Community and was a former member of the Gram Panchayath. The accused No.1 who is the husband of Smt.Madhu, who is a sitting member of the Gram Panchayath was doing some illegal activities within the limits of the said Gram Panchayath. The deceased being former member of the said Panchayath, allegedly informing the said illegal activities to the officials. Hence, accused No.1 had developed a grudge

HC-KAR

against the deceased-Shanthakumar. On 22.01.2025, accused Nos.1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention to commit the murder of the deceased, assaulted the deceased

and

committed

his

murder.

Based

on

the

complaint,

the

respondent-Police

conducted

investigation

and

submitted

charge sheet.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are innocents of the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in the present case.

4.

It is further submitted that mob lynching had taken place in the village due to some untoward incidents happened in the village, wherein accused Nos.1 to 4 had also been sustained injuries. In fact, accused No.1 had also lodged a complaint against some of the witnesses in this case. The appellants have been implicated in this case on a political rivalry. Therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. They will abide by the conditions to be imposed in the event of their release on bail.

5.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State vehemently submitted that

HC-KAR

the accused Nos.2 and 3/appellants are the influential persons of the locality. The murder of the Ex-Gram Panchayat Member had taken place on account of enmity stemming from political issues. If the appellants are enlarged on bail, there may be chances of tampering with the prosecution witnesses or threaten them with dire consequences. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant any relief as prayed for in the appeal.

Making such submissions, the learned HCGP prays to reject the appeal.

6.

Having

heard

the

learned

counsel

for

the

respective parties and also on perusal of the averments of the charge sheet, it would indicate that the murder had taken place on account of political enmity. No doubt, it is a ghastly murder.

There are 08 eyewitnesses to the incident as per the charge sheet. In order to protect their interest, it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal.

7.

In the light of the observation made above, I

proceed to pass the following:

HC-KAR