Karnataka High Court
Siddaraju V vs The State Of Karnataka By on 13 November, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No. 2054 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2054 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SIDDARAJU V
S/O. VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
C/O. NAGARAJU,
ANGADI BEEDHI,
NEXT TO KARAGA TEMPLE,
VEMAGAL, KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
PIN 563101
NATIVE ADDRESS
KANEGOWDANAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
PIN 563101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARALE SANTHOSH SUBHASHCHANDRA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI
POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
CRL.A No. 2054 of 2025
2. SRI. OMKARPPA,
S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT. NO. 150,
SANJEEVENI LAYOUT,
LAKSHMIPURA,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU.
PIN 562 162.
3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT KASABA HOBLI,
OBANAYAKANAHALLI,
NELAMANGALA - 562123
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP.,
SMT. MANJULA D., ADV. FOR R3.)
[CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DTD:24.10.2025]
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC AND
ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE II ADDL.DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN
CRL.MISC.NO.1577/2025 DATED 18.09.2025 AND ENLARGE
THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPL.C NO.886/2022
(CR.NO.423/2022) OF MADANAYAKANAHALLI POILCE FOR THE
ALLEGED O/P/U/S 302,201 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.DIST. AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 06.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-3-
CRL.A No. 2054 of 2025
CAV JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the order dated 18th September 2025 passed in Criminal Misc. No.1577 of 2025 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Rural) District, Bengaluru "for short "the trial Court").
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on the basis of complaint filed by one Omkarappa, Madanayakanahalli Police, registered Crime No.423 of 2022 against unknown persons for commission offence punishable under section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and submitted FIR to the court. After completion of investigation, investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against accused 1 to 5 for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 201 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant regular bail came to be rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 18th September 2025. Being aggrieved by the rejection of bail, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
-4-CRL.A No. 2054 of 2025
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that name of the appellant does not find place in the First Information Report or in the complaint. The appellant is totally a stranger to the alleged crime. He was not aware about the same. He has neither directly or indirectly involved in the above case. Even though the appellant is in no way concerned to the crime, the respondent Police have falsely implicated the name of the charge-sheet at the later stage of investigation instead of arresting the accused who are held responsible for the murder of the deceased. It is further submitted that PW1-Omkarappa is not an eye witness and PW2-Govinda Raju who is eyewitness, has not supported the case of prosecution. Even in his cross-examination, after treating him as hostile witness by the prosecution, he has categorically denied the statement recorded by the investigating officer under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure which is marked as Exhibit P10.
4. Learned Counsel would further submit that PW3- Thirthappa Basappa has not supported the case of prosecution. PW6 also has not supported the Case of prosecution. Further, he submits that this court has granted bail to Manjunath accused No.3 in Criminal Misc. No.1251 of 2025 dated 18th -5- CRL.A No. 2054 of 2025 September 2025. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.
5. As against this, Sri R. Rangaswamy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the official respondent-State, would submit that the alleged eye-witness has not supported the case of prosecution, The last seen witness PW5-Bhagyamma, has supported the case of prosecution. He would further submit that the present accused has filed appeal before this court in Criminal Appeal No.666 of 2023, and the same came to be rejected by this court on 30th June 2023. The CCTV footage has been recovered by the police and the same reveals that the deceased went along with accused. On all these grounds, it is sought for rejection of appeal.
6. Respondent No.3 has filed statement of objections.
7. Having heard on both sides and perusal of materials, the following point arise for my consideration:
"Whether the appellant/accused has made out a ground to interfere with the order impugned passed by the trial Court?
8. I have examined the materials placed before the court. A perusal of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench -6- CRL.A No. 2054 of 2025 of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.666 of 2023 decided on 30th June, 2023 reveals that the present applicant had filed Criminal Appeal against the order passed by the trial Court in Crime No.423 of 2022. The appeal came to be dismissed by this Court by Order dated 30th June, 2023. At paragraph 10 of the order, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, has observed thus:
"10. Back ground of the crime also reveals that the deceased said to have told the accused No.1 that he had intimacy with the wife of accused No.1. Thereafter, he has married her. On the background, accused person hatched the conspiracy and took the deceased into the lonely place along with accused persons and committed murder. Of course the case is based upon the circumstantial evidence. However, one Sri.Govindarju i.e., C.W.3 has stated that on the same day, he along with one driver went in a car along with one of the accused person has dropped the deceased to the lonely place and committed murder and came back he informed that they taught a lesson to him. CCTV footage said to have recovered by the police reveals that the deceased went with accused persons."
9. Smt. D Manjula, the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.3, has produced the order sheet in Special Case No.886 of 2022 which reveals that the trial Court had granted interim bail to this accused. Thereafter, the trial court has rejected the same on the ground that -7- CRL.A No. 2054 of 2025 accused No.2 violated the conditions of interim bail and he has not underwent surgery as submitted by him in the application seeking interim bail. The appellant has not disclosed as to the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No.666 of 2023 by this Court. The court has granted bail to Manjunath accused No.3. The same cannot be a ground to grant bail to this accused as the fact and circumstance of the case pertaining to accused Manjunath are not similar to the facts of this accused. The prosecution has not examined all the witnesses. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, at this stage, it is not just on proper to release accused on bail. Accordingly, I answer Point that arose for consideration in the negative.
10. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn