Shri. Bhimappa @ Bhimashi vs The State Of Karnataka & Anr.

There is a delay of 317 days in filing the appeal.

Admittedly, the appellant is in custody. Hence, I.A.No.1/2026 is allowed. Delay is condoned.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 12.06.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.629/2024 on the file of Sessions Judge, Belagavi and the proceeding is initiated pursuant to Athani Police Crime No.26/2024 for the offences alleged under Sections 341, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventions of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the present appeal is successive bail petition and earlier bail petitions have been rejected with a liberty to the appellant to approach the Court after changed circumstances.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that out of 44 witnesses cited, 6 are said to be eyewitnesses and all the 6 have been examined.

In addition it is also submitted that out of remaining 8 witnesses examined, they are said to be the panchas for alleged recovery. It is submitted all those panchas and none of the eyewitnesses, supported the case of the prosecution.

Thus, learned counsel would urge that there is a substantial change in the circumstance compared to what it was prior to the evidence recorded by the Sessions Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that the appellant is in custody since 26.01.2024 and except this, no other criminal case was ever filed against the appellant. In case, the appellant is released on bail, appellant would abide by the terms and conditions of the bail and would co-operate for the fair and speedy trial.

Learned HCGP would oppose the appeal on the ground that serious allegation is made against the appellant. Appellant is the main accused. He has killed the victim by using knife in public place at evening and there are eyewitnesses to the incident. The weapon is recovered from the appellant. The forensic expert's opinion points fingers to the appellant, as such, no ground is made out to grant the bail by setting aside the well-reasoned order passed by the Sessions Court.

The Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

It is an admitted fact that the Court has permitted the appellant to move the bail petition after changed circumstances. When this order was passed, the evidence had not yet commenced. Now, the trial has commenced. Admittedly, 14 witnesses have been examined, and out of them, 6 witnesses were said to be the eyewitnesses. It is stated that none of the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. It is further stated that nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses who have been turned hostile.

It is further stated that even the recovery panchas who allegedly saw the recovery of weapon from the appellant did not support the case of the prosecution.

Though it is submitted that the fingerprint on the recovered weapon allegedly matches with the fingerprint of the appellant, the Court is of the view that by itself cannot be a ground to deny the bail more so in a situation where no criminal antecedents have been pointed out against the appellant.

The apprehension of the respondent/State that appellant may not co-operate for fair trial can be adequately addressed by imposing suitable conditions.

Hence, the following:

Appeal is allowed subject to the following conditions.

Impugned order dated 12.06.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.629/2024 on the file of Sessions Judge, Belagavi is set aside.

Observations made in this order are only confined to the merit of the bail petition and not on the merit of the case pending before the Sessions Court.