[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Thimmareddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7911
CRL.A No. 200351 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 200352 of 2025
CRL.A No. 200353 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200351 OF 2025 (U/S 14 (A))
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200352 OF 2025 (U/S 14 (A))
&
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200353 OF 2025 (U/S 14 (A))
IN CRL.A NO. 200351/2025:
BETWEEN:
SRI. THIMMAREDDY S/O SHANTREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRI AND
BUSINESS, R/O MADDIPET VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
Digitally signed
by NIJAMUDDIN ...APPELLANT
JAMKHANDI (BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANSHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR
Location: HIGH SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH, MARKET YARD POLICE STATION,
RAICHUR, TQ & DIST. RAICHUR
REP. BY ITS ADDL. S.P.P
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABUARAGI BENCH,
KALABURAGI-585102.
2. SMT. GOVINDAMMA W/O THIMMAREDDY,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7911
CRL.A No. 200351 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 200352 of 2025
CRL.A No. 200353 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O NEAR TEJAPPA HOUSE, HARIJANWAD,
RAICHUR, TQ. AND DIST.RAICHUR-584102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI B. I. SARDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 14 A(2) OF THE
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION
OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.11.2025, IN CRL.
MISC.NO.671/2025, (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.99/2025)
PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAICHUR, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL CONSEQUENTLY
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 ON ANTICIPATORY
BAIL IN CRIME NO.99/2025, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.
DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 189(2), 191(2), 54, 115(2),
352, 351(2) AND 103(1) READ WITH SECTION 190 OF BNSS,
2023 AND SECTIONS 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(V) OF SC AND ST
(PA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT MARKET YARD POLICE STATION, RAICHUR.
IN CRL.A NO. 200352/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SADDAM HUSSAIN @ SADDAM,
S/O AHAMAD BEG,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC,
R/O H. NO.12-6-377/560,
NGO COLONY, NEAR POTNAL ROAD,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
2. SRI. VENKAT KRISHNA @ KRISHNA,
S/O PERAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MACHIKALAPADU, TQ. PRAKASHAM,
(ANDHRA PRADESH STATE).
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANSHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7911
CRL.A No. 200351 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 200352 of 2025
CRL.A No. 200353 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH, MARKET YARD POLICE STATION,
RAICHUR, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR
REP. BY IS ADDL S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH, KALABURAGI-585102.
2. SMT. GOVINDAMMA W/O THIMMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O NEAR TEJAPPA HOUSE, HARIJANWAD,
RAICHUR, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI B. I. SARDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-
A OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET- ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.11.2025, IN CRL.
MISC.NO.673/2025, (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.99/2025)
PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAICHUR, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. CONSEQUENTLY
ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.4 AND 6 ON
ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.99/2025, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAICHUR, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 189(2), 191(2), 54, 115(2), 352, 351(2) AND
103(1) R/W SEC. 190 OF BNS, 2023 AND SECS.3(1)(R),
3(1)S), 3(2) (V) OF SC AND ST (PA) AMENDMENT ACT,
2015, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT-MARKET YARD
POLICE STATION, RAICHUR,
IN CRL.A NO. 200353/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. UPENDRA @ AKIL REDDY
S/O RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7911
CRL.A No. 200351 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 200352 of 2025
CRL.A No. 200353 of 2025
HC-KAR
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O H.NO.78, GURAJAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
2. SRI. B. TARUNA @ TARUNA S/O B RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O H.NO.9-17-24, MADDIPET RAICHUR,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHIVAND V. PATTANSHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH, MARKET YARD POLICE STATION,
RAICHUR, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR
REP. BY ITS ADDL. S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI
BENCH, KALABURAGI-585102.
2. SMT. GOVINDAMMA W/O THIMMAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O NEAR TEJAPPA HOUSE, HARIJANWAD
RAICHUR, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI B. I. SARDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-
A OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.11.2025 IN CRL MISC
NO.680/2025 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.99/2025 )
PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE
RAICHUR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL CONSEQUENTLY
ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED NO.3 AND 5 ON
ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.99/2025 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
RAICHUR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC 189(2),
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7911
CRL.A No. 200351 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 200352 of 2025
CRL.A No. 200353 of 2025
HC-KAR
191(2), 54, 115(2), 352, 351(2) AND 103(1) R/W SEC 190
OF BNS, 2023 AND SEC 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(V) OF SC
AND ST (PA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT MARKET YARD POLICE STATION, RAICHUR.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 18.12.2025 COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CAV JUDGMENT
These three appeals are filed by accused Nos.1, 3, 4,
5 and 6 under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
short 'SC/ST (POA) Act') seeking anticipatory bail in Crime
No.99/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections
189(2), 191(2), 54, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 103(1) read with
Section 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
2. The facts are as under:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7911
HC-KAR
The deceased Dashwanth, who is the son of
respondent No.2 was brought to the police station on
27.09.2025 by the members of the public on the allegation
that he had attempted to commit theft of iron window
bars. On the same day at about 07.30 p.m., the mother
of the deceased was informed by the police and was asked
to take her son home after counseling. While at the police
station, her son suddenly collapsed due to an epileptic
seizure. He was immediately shifted to Raichur Institute
of Medical Sciences, Raichur (RIMS), where he was
admitted. Unfortunately, on 28.09.2025 at about 12.30
p.m. he succumbed. On 28.09.2025, respondent
No.2/complainant made a statement stating that her son
was suffering from epilepsy since childhood, that he had
collapsed due seizure and that she had no grievance or
allegation against any person in respect of the same.
Based on this statement, the police registered UDR
No.9/2025.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7911
HC-KAR
3. However, on 06.10.2025, respondent No.2
lodged a second complaint alleging that on 27.09.2025 at
about 02.30 p.m. the deceased was assaulted by accused
persons including present appellants near the compound of
accused No.1's residence and that caste based abuse and
threats were herald. Thereafter, he was taken to the
police station. Based on this written complaint, crime was
registered in Crime No.99/2025.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
reiterating the grounds urged in all the three appeals
submits that earlier version given by the complainant on
28.09.2025 clearly absolves all persons of lame and
attributes. The death is solely due to epilepsy. He submits
complainant herself admits that deceased was brought to
the police station for attempted theft and not pursuant to
any assault. The Medical Records placed on record
disclose a long standing history of epilepsy, alcoholism and
also drug abuse. Therefore, he submits that second
complaint is an afterthought lodged after registration of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7911
HC-KAR
UDR No.9/2025 and is inconsistent with medical and
contemporaneous records. Therefore, he contends that
allegations under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act are
vague, omnibus and unsupported by prima facie materials.
Therefore, statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST
(POA) Act would not apply.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2/complainant has filed objection and has
produced documents demonstrating that all the accused
persons have got antecedents. While countering the
appellants' contention that the second complaint was
belatedly lodged, he would submit from his additional
documents that complaint was infact lodged on
02.08.2025, however, the police officials have entertained
the said complaint and crime is registered on 06.10.2025.
He would therefore contend that respondent No.2 who
belongs to depressed class and her son for no reason was
abused and severely assaulted, which has resulted into
death and therefore, it is not a fit case to grant
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7911
HC-KAR
anticipatory bail, as there is a clear bar under Sections 18
and 18A of SC/ST (POA) Act.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1 has seriously opposed
grant of anticipatory bail.
7. This Court has carefully perused the complaint,
UDR records, medical documents and other materials
placed on record. It is undisputed that first statement
dated 28.09.2025 given immediately after the death of the
deceased records the complainant had not attributed the
cause of death due to assault made by these
appellants/accused persons. The statement refers to
deceased suffering from epilepsy.
8. The medical records assume critical significance
at this stage. While the deceased was still present in the
police station, he suffered convulsions and, with the
assistance of the police officials, was immediately shifted
to the hospital. The contemporaneous medical records
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7911
HC-KAR
disclose a history of epilepsy, alcohol dependence, and
drug abuse (ganja). The records further indicate that such
substance abuse was in existence for nearly four months
prior to the incident.
9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid medical
evidence, this Court has adverted to the second complaint
dated 06.10.2025, wherein allegations of unlawful
assembly, assault, and caste-based abuse are made. At
this juncture, the said complaint appears to be materially
inconsistent with the earliest version as well as the
medical evidence on record.
10. Another crucial document that merits
consideration is the final medical opinion issued by the
Raichur Institute of Medical Sciences, Raichur. Upon
examination of the autopsy findings, RFSL report,
histopathology report, hospital case sheet, and the brief
facts of the case, the medical authority has opined that
the cause of death is consistent with Status Epilepticus
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7911
HC-KAR
(seizures). In light of this medical evidence, now placed
before the Court by the learned High Court Government
Pleader, the question that arises for consideration is
whether, notwithstanding the invocation of offences under
the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the statutory bar
contained under Sections 18 and 18A of the said Act would
operate in the present factual matrix.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj
Chauhan v. Union of India and Others, reported in
(2020) 4 SCC 727, has held that where no prima facie
case is made out, the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of
the SC/ST (POA) Act would not apply, and the Court is not
denuded of its power to grant anticipatory bail.
12. In the present case, the material on record,
particularly the medical evidence, indicates that the
deceased was brought to the police station at the instance
of members of the public, who had alleged that he was
found committing theft of iron bars. It is also relevant to
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7911
HC-KAR
note that the statement of the mother recorded on
27.09.2025 discloses that the deceased had insisted on
being paid a sum of Rs.10/- on the morning of the
incident. When these circumstances are examined in
conjunction with the medical records indicating epilepsy
and substance abuse, this Court is of the considered view
that the petitioners have made out a case for grant of
discretionary relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The
belated and improved allegations contained in the second
complaint would necessarily require adjudication at a full-
fledged trial.
13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
All the three appeals are allowed.
The order dated 18.11.2025, passed by the Court of
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur in
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7911
HC-KAR
Crl.Misc.No.671/2025, Crl.Misc.No.673/2025 and
Crl.Misc.No.680/2025 are set-aside.
The respondent-Police are directed to release the
appellants/accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on bail in the
event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.99/2025
for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2),
54, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 103(1) read with Section 190 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, subject to
the following conditions:
i) The appellants shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within fifteen (15) days
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment and shall execute a personal bond for
a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)
each with one surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7911
HC-KAR
ii) The appellants shall cooperate with the
investigation and shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when required.
iii) The appellants shall not, in any manner,
tamper with the prosecution witnesses or
evidence, either directly or indirectly.
iv) The appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction
of the Trial Court without prior permission.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
SRT
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1
Ct:si
