Smt. Sharada & Ors. vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors.

Crl.A.No.100444/2026 is filed by accused Nos.10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20 and 28, seeking anticipatory bail, in Crime No.119/2026 of Adur Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109, 74, 49, 351(2), 352 and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3 (2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC and ST Act’).

Crl.A.No.100445/2026 is filed by accused Nos.2 to 5, 7, 17, 22 and 27, seeking regular bail in the same crime number.

Crl.A.No.100446/2026 is filed by accused No.1, seeking anticipatory bail in the same crime number.

During the pendency of these appeals, appeal against some of the appellants was dismissed as not survived for consideration, because they were given up in the charge sheet.

As per the prosecution case, on 15.07.2026 at about 02.30 a.m. i.e., early in the morning or midnight, the complainant by name Udachappa Basavanneppa Uddanakal has filed a complaint before Adur Police Station alleging that, he and the accused are residents of Byagvadi Village. The accused including others encroached the cart road situated in Survey No.173 of Byagvadi Village, which belonged to the public and they obstructed public to proceed on the road.

Since there was no road to proceed to their lands, the complainant submitted representation before Hangal Tahasildar on 07.03.2026 so as to remove the encroachment. In that regard these accused abused the complainant in filthy language taking his caste. Thereafter on 15.06.2026, when the revenue authorities came to the land for measurement and to remove the encroachment, these accused along with other persons obstructed for removal of the encroachment.

Thereafter on 14.07.2026 at about 08:45 p.m. when the complainant was proceeding towards the house of his brother, accused No.2 (appellant in Crl.A.No.100445/2026) came holding club, assaulted with club on the head of the complainant and caused grievous hurt. Then accused No.6 (appellant in Crl.A.No.100445/2026) came holding stone has assaulted on the right cheek and caused hurt to the complainant.

Thereafter accused No.1 (appellant in Crl.A.No.100446/2026) came on his TT vehicle with speed, dashed against one Adiveppa, as a result he fell down on the ground and accused No.1 who was holding a chopper in his hand with an intention to kill the injured Fakkirappa, assaulted with chopper on the left ribs of Fakkirappa and caused grievous hurt. Accused No.7 (appellant in Crl.A.No.100445/2026) who was holding knife has stabbed and caused grievous hurt. Accused No.4 (appellant in Crl.A.No.100445/2026) who was holding iron rod came and assaulted on the left hand of Fakkirappa and caused hurt.

The accused and the other persons who were holding chopper, sickle, iron rod, stones, came in front of the complainant, formed an unlawful assembly there, committed rioting holding dangerous weapons. Accused No.4 and accused No.20 have pulled the saree of mother of the complainant, dragged her, pulled her blouse, threatened her with dire consequences.

On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant before Adur Police Station, the police have registered the case in Crime No.119/2026 initially for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109, 74, 49, 351(2), 352 and 190 of BNS and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3 (2)(va) of the SC and ST Act. It is further case of the prosecution that, thereafter the injured being the brother of the complainant namely Fakkirappa and the another injured who is uncle of the complainant namely Adiveppa, who were admitted to Haveri District Hospital for treatment for the injuries sustained by them in the alleged incident and in the Haveri Hospital they were advised to shift both of them to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi and they were shifted to KIMS Hospital Hubballi and on 16.07.2026, uncle of the complainant namely Adiveppa succumbed to injuries. On the basis of the further statement of the complainant, case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS, 2023, along with the other offences. The accused Nos.2 to 4, 7, 17 and 22 were arrested on 15.07.2026 and since then they are in Judicial Custody.

The accused persons filed petitions before the learned Special Judge, Haveri, seeking to enlarge them on bail. Their bail applications came to be rejected by the Special Judge, Haveri. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their bail applications, the accused persons are before this Court. They contended that, there is a civil dispute which has been going since long back and these accused have also lodged a complaint against the complainant herein, which was registered before the same police station in Crime No.118/2026.

In the said Crime No.118/2026, the complainant herein and others have already been enlarged on bail. It is contended that, the registration of this complaint by the complainant is an afterthought and as a counter complaint to the complaint filed by these accused.

It is further contended that, the incident said to have happened with regard to the alleged encroachment is only a civil dispute and the complainant has given colour to the said dispute alleging that it has come within the purview of criminal proceedings.

Further it is contended that, the investigation is already completed and charge sheet has also been filed. These three accused persons i.e., accused Nos.2 to 4, 7, 17 and 22 are in judicial custody since 15.07.2026.It is further contended that, they are only the earning members of the family and they are having agricultural lands, this is the sowing season and as the charge sheet has already been filed, keeping them in the custody is unnecessary. Hence, the accused persons prayed for enlarging them on bail

Learned counsel for the appellants who are seeking anticipatory bail argued that, as the charge sheet has already been filed, custodial interrogation of these accused persons is not necessary and therefore, he has argued that they may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for appellants further argued that, initially complaint was filed against 32 accused persons and during the investigation, some accused persons were given up from the charge sheet as no offences made out against them.

Per contra, learned HCGP argued that there are eyewitnesses to the incident and accused No.1 who is the prime accused has been absconded since the date of incident. The offence complained against these accused is punishable under Section 103 of BNS, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Moreover these accused have also committed the offences punishable under the provisions of SC and ST Act, which is also serious in nature. Unless the evidence of the eye witnesses is recorded, till then these accused are not entitled to be enlarge on bail.

It is further contended that, as these accused have not co-operated for investigation and absconded from the date of incident, it is submitted that, taking into consideration of the seriousness of the offence, these accused are not entitled to be granted bail.

Having considered the material placed before the Court, as these accused are said to have committed the murder of the deceased Adiveppa, the uncle of the complainant and further it is alleged that, there is dispute between two groups with respect to the cart road in Survey No.173, which is said to have encroached, this Court is of the opinion that, these accused persons are not entitled to be granted bail.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the incident is said to have happened on 15.07.2026 and the deceased Adiveppa died on 16.07.2026. On a perusal of the postmortem report, which is produced along with the charge sheet, external injuries found i.e., contusion over outer aspect of right buttock, abrasion over right thigh and above the right knee. Therefore no serious injury are caused on vital parts of the deceased and opinion as to cause of death is still to be received. Therefore, it is argued that these accused never intended to kill the deceased and even on reading the complaint, the overtact is attributed only against accused Nos.2, 4 and 7 and therefore it is argued that the other accused are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

However, as the other accused are also actively participated in the alleged incident, as rightly submitted by the learned HCGP, as these accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased, having regard to the gravity of the offence and seriousness of the offence, till the evidence of the eyewitnesses is recorded, this Court is of the opinion that these accused are not entitled for anticipatory bail and regular bail. Hence, all these appeals are liable to be dismissed.

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

All the criminal appeals are dismissed.