SALIM S/O ILAYI JHANDE vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17928
CRL.A No. 100477 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020168672026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100477 OF 2026
(U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT)
BETWEEN:
1. SALIM S/O ILAYI JHANDE
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SASALATTI 587315,
TQ. TERDAL. DIST. BAGALKOT.
2. RAJU S/O BAPUSAB DARAWAN
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. SASALATTI 587315,
TQ. TERDAL. DIST. BAGALKOT.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
TERDAL POLICE STATION,
R/BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD 580001.
2. KHUBER S/O JAYAPAL KAMBALE
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. SASALATTI 587315,
TQ. TERDAL, DIST. BAGALKOT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SHEKHARGOUDA M. NAGANURI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST ACT,
ROHAN
HADIMANI
T
Digitally signed by ROHAN
HADIMANI T
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.11.03 14:39:28
+0530
1989 PRAYING TO ORDER DIRECTING THE TERDAL PS TO RELASE
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17928
CRL.A No. 100477 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020168672026
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 2 ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
THEIR ARREST BY TERDAL PS IN CRIME O. 83/2026, REGISTERED
ON 17.07.2026 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 108 OF BNS
ACT 2023 AND SEC. 3(2)(5) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 PENDING
BEFORE IV ADLL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, BAGALKOTE BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
18.08.2026 IN CRL.MISC NO.435/2026.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
ORAL/CAV JUDGMENT
1. The appellants, who are accused Nos.1 and 2,
being aggrieved by the rejection of their application for
anticipatory bail by the IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Bagalkot, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.435/2026,
arising out of Crime No.83/2026 registered at Terdal Police
Station for the offences punishable under Section 3(2)(v)
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short SC & SC
Act) and Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, (for short BNS) have preferred the present appeal.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17928
CRL.A No. 100477 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020168672026
2. The case of the prosecution is that, accused
Nos.1 and 2 belong to the Muslim community, whereas the
deceased belonged to the Scheduled Caste. It is alleged
that, accused No.1 had an illicit relationship with Laxmi
Kamble, the wife of the complainant's younger brother
namely the deceased Maruti Jayapal Kamble. Upon coming
to know about the alleged illicit relationship, the deceased
became distressed and mentally disturbed on account of
the conduct of his wife with accused No.1. Consequently,
on 16.07.2026, the deceased is said to have committed
suicide. It is further alleged that, accused No.2 being a
friend of accused No.1, facilitated the commission of the
alleged offence. On the basis of the complaint lodged by
the brother of the deceased, the case came to be
registered.
3. The appellants, being accused Nos.1 and 2 have
contended that, they have not committed any offence as
alleged by the prosecution or the complainant.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17928
CRL.A No. 100477 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020168672026
4. It is further contended that, as per the
prosecution case, accused No.1 is alleged to had an illicit
relationship with the wife of the deceased. However, there
is no proximate nexus between the alleged conduct of the
accused and the alleged suicide committed by the
deceased. It is further submitted that, the allegations are
not supported by any cogent material. The appellants are
residents of Sasalatti Village, are agriculturists and have
deep roots in society. There is no possibility of their
absconding or fleeing from the jurisdiction of the Court.
Hence, the appellants have prayed for grant of
anticipatory bail.
5. In the present case, respondent No.2 being the
complainant has been arrayed as a party and has entered
appearance through learned counsel and opposed the
appeal.
6. The State, represented by the learned High
Court Government Pleader, has also opposed the appeal.
Both have contended that, the appellants are not entitled
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17928
CRL.A No. 100477 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020168672026
to anticipatory bail in view of the statutory bar contained
under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
7. Further, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 submitted that, on a reading of the
complaint averments, the deceased is stated to have
committed suicide. However, there is a doubt regarding
the actual cause of death, and the complainant suspects
that, the death of the deceased was not suicidal but
homicidal. Therefore, learned counsel for respondent No.2
contended that, accused Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled to
the relief of anticipatory bail.
8. It is further submitted that custodial
interrogation of the accused is necessary to elicit the truth
regarding the death of the deceased. Hence, the learned
counsel opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.
9. Perused the complaint averments and the
materials placed on record.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17928
CRL.A No. 100477 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020168672026
10. On perusal of the complaint averments, insofar
as accused No.1 is concerned, there is an allegation that
he had an illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased.
It is further alleged that, the deceased was mentally
disturbed on account of the conduct of his wife with
accused No.1, which ultimately led him to commit suicide.
11. However, as it is contended by the complainant
that there is a doubt regarding the actual cause of death,
namely, whether it was suicidal or homicidal, this Court is
of the opinion that custodial interrogation of accused No.1
may be necessary for the purpose of investigation.
Therefore, accused No.1 is not entitled to the relief of
anticipatory bail.
12. Insofar as accused No.2 is concerned, it is
alleged that he facilitated the commission of the offence.
However, on careful perusal of the complaint averments,
no specific overt act is attributed to accused No.2. Learned
counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted that, as
against this accused also there is serious allegations. The
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17928
CRL.A No. 100477 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020168672026
deceased on his arm has named this accused stating that,
he (Accused No.2) also involved in the crime.
13. On perusal of the records, though it is stated
that, the deceased has mentioned the name of Accused
No.2, but it is borne out from the records the writings are
not clear and legible as against accused No.2.
14. Though the provisions of Sections 18 and 18A
of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act impose a bar on
granting anticipatory bail, in view of the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj
Chauhan v. Union of India , where that there are no
prima facie case is made out against the accused, the
statutory bar would not operate, and the accused may be
considered for the relief of anticipatory bail.
15. In the present case, on perusal of the complaint
averments, this Court finds that no prima facie material is
forthcoming against accused No.2 to attract the alleged
offences. Therefore, accused No.2 is entitled to the relief
of anticipatory bail, whereas accused No.1 is not entitled
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17928
CRL.A No. 100477 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020168672026
to the same. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is partly allowed in Part .
The prayer for anticipatory bail insofar as
appellant/accused No.1 is concerned hereby rejected . The
appeal insofar as appellant/accused No.2 is concerned is
allowed . Accordingly, appellant/accused No.2 shall be
released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
connection with Crime No.83/2026 registered at Terdal
Police Station for the offences punishable under Section
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 108 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, subject to the
following conditions:
a. Appellant/accused No.2 shall appear before the
jurisdictional Court within 15 days from the date
of this order and execute the necessary bond to
avail the benefit of this order.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17928
CRL.A No. 100477 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020168672026
b. Appellant/accused No.2 shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
only), with two sureties for the like sum, to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
c. Appellant/accused No.2 shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior
permission of the Court.
d. Appellant/accused No.2 shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence or threaten, induce or
influence any of the prosecution witnesses in any
manner.
e. Appellant/accused No.2 shall appear before the
Investigating Officer or the jurisdictional Court, as
and when directed.
f. Appellant/accused No.2 shall appear before the
Trial Court regularly during the course of trial,
without fail.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17928
CRL.A No. 100477 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020168672026
In the event of violation of any of the above
conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to seek
cancellation of bail in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE
AC
CT-CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13