Karnataka High Court
Sri Hanumantharaya S/O Bhagyamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1645
CRL.A No. 100470 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100470 OF 2024
(U/S 14 A(2) of SC and ST ACT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA
S/O BHAGYAMMA
AGE: 32 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O 1ST WARD, VIDYANIKETAN SCHOOL
NEAR RAIKAR ONI, RAMANAGAR
TAL: H B HALLI
DIST: VIJAYANAGAR - 583 212.
2. SRI. BANGARI NAGARAJ
S/O BHAGYAMMA
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
Digitally signed R/O: 1ST WARD, VIDYANIKETAN SCHOOL
by
SREEDHARAN NEAR RAITOR ONI, RAMANAGAR
BANGALORE
SUSHMA
TAL: H B HALLI
LAKSHMI DIST: VIJAYANAGAR - 583 212.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH H B HALLI POLICE STATION
NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH AT DHARWAD - 580 011.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1645
CRL.A No. 100470 of 2024
2. SRI. SANDEEP B
S/O VANAJAKSHAMMA
AGE: 23 YEARS
OCC: PRIVATE WORK
R/O: NEAR VIDYANIKETAN SCHOOL
1ST WARD, RAMANAGARA, H B HALLI TOWN
DIST: VIJAYANAGAR - 583 212.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. ANURADHA DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14(A)(2) OF
SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT,1989 SEEKING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2024 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI
IN CRL.MISC NO. 445/2024 AND GRANT BAIL TO THE
APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED NOS. 2 AND 3 IN SPECIAL CASE NO.
351/2024 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BALLARI (CRIME NO. 19/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 302
AND 354(A)(4) R/W 149 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 BY THE RESPONDENT
H.B. HALLI POLICE STATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
17.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1645
CRL.A No. 100470 of 2024
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)
1. This appeal is filed by the appellants / accused Nos.2
and 3, seeking to set aside the order passed by the
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari dated
12.06.2024 in Crl. Misc. No.445/2024 and enlarge the
appellants on bail in Special Case No.351/2024 on the
file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ballari, arising out of Crime No.19/2024 of the
respondent - Police for the offences punishable under
Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 302 and
354(A)(4) r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')
and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) (Amendment) Act, 2015 (for short 'SC/ST
(POA) Act').
2. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court will be
considered henceforth for convenience.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1645
Brief facts of the case:-
3. It is the case of the prosecution that a loan transaction
had taken place between the deceased Manjunath and
family members of accused No.1. The deceased had
pledged his motorcycle with the accused and obtained a
loan of Rs.35,000/-. The deceased had returned
Rs.30,000/- and he was to pay Rs.5,000/-.
4. On 16.02.2024, at about 12.56 a.m., the sister of the
complainant informed him that the accused were abusing
in filthy languages to their sister-in-law and requested the
complainant to accompany her. The complainant, his
brother - deceased Manjunath and other family members
went to the house of the accused and asked them as to
why they were abusing them. The accused immediately
attacked the deceased with iron rod and knife and caused
injuries and also abused them by naming their caste.
5. Upon the complaint of the complainant, a case came to
be registered in Crime No.19/2024 against all the
accused. After conducting the investigation, submitted
the charge sheet.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1645
6. Heard Shri Srinand A. Pachhapure, learned counsel for
appellants, Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and
Smt.Anuradha Deshpande, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
7. It is the submission of learned counsel for appellants that
the appellants are accused Nos.2 and 3. They have been
falsely implicated in this case and they are innocent of the
alleged offences.
8. It is further submitted that the accused Nos.1 and 4 to 6
have approached this Court and obtained bail. Whereas,
the appellants herein belonged to 'Valmiki community'
and the said community is considered as 'Scheduled
Tribe'. Therefore, the provisions under the SC/ST (POA)
Act would not be applicable.
9. It is further submitted that the specific overt act of the
appellants is not forthcoming in the charge sheet,
therefore, the appellants are required to be enlarged on
bail. Making such submissions, learned counsel for
appellants prays to allow the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1645
10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 vehemently denied the submissions of
the learned counsel for appellants and further she
submitted that the overt act of the appellants has been
narrated in the charge sheet. As per the said averments,
accused No.3 assaulted the deceased Manjunath several
times with an iron rod on his forehead, right ear and also
face etc., and accused No.2 stabbed the deceased
Manjunath with a knife on various parts of the body of the
deceased. Consequently, the deceased sustained injuries
and later, he died. The overt acts of these appellants are
so severe and there are nine eyewitnesses to the
incident. In case, if the appellants are released on bail,
there would be a threat to the witnesses. Therefore, the
bail application of the appellants needs to be rejected.
Making such submissions, learned High Court
Government Pleader prays to reject the appeal.
11. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopted the
arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader and
prays to reject the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1645
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the averments of the charge
sheet, there are nine eyewitnesses to the incident. The
manner in which the incident had taken place had been
explained by the witnesses in their statements.
13. Though this Court granted bail in respect of accused
Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, the overt acts alleged
against the said accused are entirely different from the
present appellants.
14. In the present case, the overt acts of the appellants are
mentioned as; the accused No.3 assaulted the deceased
Manjunath with an iron rod on his forehead, right ear and
also face etc. The accused No.2 assaulted the deceased
with a knife on various parts of the body. As the
deceased died due to the said injuries, it is not
appropriate, at this stage, to grant bail to the appellants.
Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
15. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to
pass the following:-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1645
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
Bss
