Sri Chandrashekar C N @ Shekar Appi vs State Of Karnataka By
2025 Latest Caselaw 2011 Kant

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2011 Kant
Judgement Date : 7 January, 2025

Karnataka High Court

Sri Chandrashekar C N @ Shekar Appi vs State Of Karnataka By on 7 January, 2025

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                       -1-
                                                    NC: 2025:KHC:280
                                              CRL.A No. 2287 of 2024




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                     BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2287 OF 2024
            BETWEEN:

                  SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR C.N. @ SHEKAR APPI,
                  S/O NAGAPPA,
                  (IN CHARGE SHEET IT IS WRONGLY SHOWN AS
                  LAGUMAIAH)
                  AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
                  R/AT CHUDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
                  VANAKANAHALLI POST,
                  KASABA HOBLI,
                  ANEKAL TALUK,
                  BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 106

                  IN CHARGE SHEET ADDRESS WRONGLY SHOWN AS
                  P. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE,
                  KASABA HOBLI,
Digitally         ANEKAL TALUK,
signed by
MALATESH          BENGALURU RURAL 562 106
KC                                                    ...APPELLANT
Location:
HIGH        (BY SRI. TEJAS N., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
            AND:

            1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
                  ANEKAL POLICE,
                  BENGALURU 562 106.
                  (REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC
                  PROSECUTOR
                  HCK, BANGALORE 01)
                                -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:280
                                         CRL.A No. 2287 of 2024




2.   SRI. MUNIRAJU,
     S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
     R/AT WARD NO.22ND, BAHADDURUPUR,
     ANEKAL TOWN,
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 106.
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1/STATE;
   NOTICE TO R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2024
PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.807/2024 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE II
ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ENLARGE THE
APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.250/2024 OF ANEKAL POLICE,
BENGALURU RURAL FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 324(4), 189(2),
103(2), 191(2), 191(3), 61(2)(a) AND 190 OF BNS, 2023 AND
U/S 3(2)(v-a) OF SC AND ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 1989.
    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                    ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.Tejas N., learned counsel for appellant and

learned HCGP for respondent.

2. Respondent No.2 served with the notice and

remained absent.

3. Appellant is accused No.10 in Spl.C.No.807/2024.

He has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under

NC: 2025:KHC:280

the provisions of Section 3 (2) (v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act and

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

4. The complaint was thoroughly investigated and

charge sheet came to be filed. As per column No.17 of the

charge sheet, role assigned to the present appellant is to the

extent of driving the car on the date of incident wherein, the

other accused persons after the incident have traveled.

5. Sri. Tejas N., learned counsel for the appellant

submits that case of the prosecution involves offence under

Section 120-B of IPC as well and even as per the prosecution,

the other conspirators namely accused Nos.4 to 9 have been

enlarged on bail and therefore, having regard to the role

assigned to the present appellant, he is also entitled to be

enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

6. Per contra, the learned HCGP opposed the bail

ground.

7. Respondent No.2 who is the de-facto complainant is

served with the notice and remained absent.

NC: 2025:KHC:280

8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this

Court perused the material on records meticulously and on

such perusal of material on record, even as per the charge

sheet, role assigned to the present appellant is only assisting

the other accused to escape away from the scene of offence

after the incident, by taking them in his car and he was the

driver of the car. Accused-appellant has co-operated with the

investigation and he is custody on and from 08.08.2024.

Taking note of the fact that charge sheet is filed and accused

Nos.4 to 9 have been enlarged on bail, who are the

conspirators according to the prosecution, this Court is of the

considered opinion that present appellant is also entitled to be

enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

9. The other apprehensions expressed by the

prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable and stringent

conditions.

10. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the appellant who

is accused No.10 is ordered to be enlarged on bail on following

conditions:

NC: 2025:KHC:280

i) The appellant shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge.