Karnataka High Court
Ananda vs The State By on 10 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40208
CRL.A No. 838 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 838 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /
483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
ANANDA
S/O. PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT SANNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
NONAVINAKERE HOBLI,
TIPTUR TALUK-572201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KANTHARAJAPPA M. G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
NONAVINAKERE POLICE,
TIPTUR RURAL CIRCLE,
REP. BY HIGH COURT SPP,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001
2. LAKSHMI,
W/O LATE PARAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT SANNENAHALLI, N.V.,
KERE HOBLI,
TIPTUR TALUK,572201
TUMKURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. ANIRUDH CHAMUNDA, ADV. FOR R2.)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40208
CRL.A No. 838 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 OF
BNSS) PRAYING TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF IN
SPL.C.NO.133/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S.302
AND 450 OF IPC AND 3(2) (va), OF SC/ST (PA) AMENDMENT
ACT, 2015 OF NONAVINAKERE POLICE STATION, TIPTUR
RURAL CIRCLE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT TUMAKURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Appellant/accused who is in judicial custody, has preferred this appeal through Legal Services Authority against the Judgment of convention and order on sentence dated 12th June, 2024, passed in Criminal Misc.No.816 of 2021 by III Additional District & Sessions Judge at Tumakuru (for short "the trial Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Tiptur Sub-Division, submitted Charge-sheet against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 302, 450 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of -3- NC: 2025:KHC:40208 CRL.A No. 838 of 2025 HC-KAR the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SC/ST (POA) Act").
4. It is the case of the prosecution that Paramesha who is husband of first informant-Lakshmi belongs to Schedule Tribe. There was enmity between him and the accused in relation to financial transaction. Therefore, with that motive on 27th August 2021 at 11.30 pm, the accused entered into Farm-house of Paramesha situate at Sannenahalli, and committed assault on Paramesha with sickle and club and killed him. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged offence.
Learned Counsel Sri M.G. Kantharappa, appearing for the appellant, would submit that the investigation is already complete and trial already commenced. There are no eye- witnesses as per the charge-sheet. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Lakshmi-wife of the deceased is examined as PW1. She has clearly admitted in her cross- examination that she does not know about the financial transaction between the accused and the deceased. The other seizure mazahar witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has already examined 23 -4- NC: 2025:KHC:40208 CRL.A No. 838 of 2025 HC-KAR witnesses. Appellant is in judicial custody for more than four years. The material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the trial Court has rejected the bail application only on the ground that other witnesses have to be examined by the prosecution. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.
Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the State has not disputed the date of arrest of the accused, so also, the period of detention of the accused i.e. for nearly 4 years. It is also not disputed that the trial Court has already recorded the statement of 23 witnesses. However, in view of the fact that trial is not yet concluded, he seeks for rejection of the appeal.
I have examined the material placed before me. Perusal of charge-sheet makes it clear that there are no witnesses to the incident. Complainant PW1-Lakshmi is also not an eye- witness. During the course of cross-examination, she has admitted that she does not know about the financial transaction between her husband and accused. Further, the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:40208 CRL.A No. 838 of 2025 HC-KAR Considering the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant/accused, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, only for deciding this Application, I am of the opinion that it is just proper to allow the appeal. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed;
ii) Order dated 12th June, 2024, passed in Criminal Petition No.816 of 2024 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru is set aside;
iii) Consequently, Application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the accused is allowed;
iv) Appellant/accused shall be released on bail upon execution of self-bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:40208 CRL.A No. 838 of 2025 HC-KAR
v) Appellant/accused shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
vi) Appellant/accused shall appear before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing without fail.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 91