Karnataka High Court

Sri Lepakshi vs State By on 21 July, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC:27310
                                                        CRL.A No. 1216 of 2025


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1216 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
                   BETWEEN:
                   1.    SRI. LEPAKSHI,
                         S/O CHANNAKESHAVA,
                         AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                         MOTOR WELDING WORK BY
                         OCCUPATION, R/O YEMMEDODDI
                         VILLAGE, DODDERI, BHADRAVATHI
                         TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577301

                   2.    SRI. ABHI @ ABHISHEK,
                         S/O SHANMUKHAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
                         OCCUPATION: "D" GROUP
                         SERVANT IN MORARJI DESAI
                         SCHOOL, R/O YEMMEDODDI
                         VILLAGE, DODDERI, BHADRAVATHI
Digitally signed         TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301
by SWAPNA V
Location: High
Court of           3.    SRI. ATHEESHA,
Karnataka
                         S/O SHANMUKHAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
                         AGRICULTURIST BY OCCUPATION,
                         R/O YEMMEDODDI VILLAGE,
                         DODDERI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
                         SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301

                   4.    SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA,
                         S/O LATE SOMALINGAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
                         AGRICULTURIST BY OCCUPATION,
                         R/O YEMMEDODDI VILLAGE,
                               -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:27310
                                       CRL.A No. 1216 of 2025


HC-KAR




     DODDERI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
     SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301
                                                ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. KARTHIK SURYAPRAKASH TAYUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.   STATE BY
     RURAL POLICE STATION,
     BHADRAVATHI, REPRESENTED
     BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU,
     BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 001

2.   SMT. VEDAVATHI,
     W/O LATE SHANTHAKUMAR,
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
     HOUSEWIFE BY OCCUPATION,
     R/O DODDERI VILLAGE,
     BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
     SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1
     SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
10.03.2025 PASSED BY THE 4TH ADDL.DIST AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI IN SPL.C
5011/2025 (PREVIOUSLY CR.NO.5004/2025) ARISING FROM
CR.NO.0014/2025     (CHARGE    SHEET   NO.41/2025)   OF   OLD
TOWN P.S FOR THE O/P/U/S 351(2), 352, 103(1) R/W SEC.
3(5) OF THE BNS, 2023 AND SEC.3 (1)(R) (S), 3 (2)(V) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, AND SEC. 3 AND 25 OF ARMS ACT,
1959, REJECTING THE APPLICATION U/S 483 BNSS FOR BAIL
                              -3-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC:27310
                                      CRL.A No. 1216 of 2025


HC-KAR




SOUGHT BY THE APPELLANTS. 2. ENLARGING THE APPELLANTS
ON BAIL IN SPL.C 5011/2025 (PREVIOUSLY CR.NO.5004/2025)
ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDL.DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.0014/2025 (CHARGE SHEET NO.41/2025) OF RURAL
POLICE STATION, BHADRAVATHI FOR THE O/P/U/S 351(2),
352, 103(1) R/W SEC. 3(5) OF THE BNS, 2023 AND SECTIONS
126(2) AND SEC. 55 OF THE BNS, 2023 AND SEC.3 (1)(R) (S),
3 (2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, AND SEC. 3 AND 25 OF
ARMS ACT, 1959.

     THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA


                     ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellants -accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court

seeking grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST (POA) Act' for

short) in Crime No.5004/2025 of Bhadravathi Rural Police

Station, pending in Spl.Case.No.5011/2025 before the learned

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting

at Bhadravathi registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 351(2), 352, 103(1) R/w Section 3(5), Sections

NC: 2025:KHC:27310

HC-KAR

126(2) and Section 55 of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for

short 'BNS') and Sections 3(1)(r), (s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST

(POA) Act and Sections 3 and 25 (1)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959

on the basis of the first information lodged by informant -

Smt. Vedavati.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Cr.No.14/2025 was

registered against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence

punishable under Sections 351(2), 352, 103(1) R/w Section

3(5), Sections 126(2) and Section 55 of the BNS, 2023 and

Sections 3(1)(r), (s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and

Sections 3 and 25 (1)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959. It is stated

that there were two rival groups on the date of incident.

Initially, there was quarrel between the two groups. Later, in

the second incident, it was accused No.1, who instigated

accused Nos.2 and 3 to cause the death of deceased.

Accordingly, accused Nos.2 and 3 came armed with long and

assaulted the deceased indiscriminately. As a result of which,

he sustained multiple injuries and died. It is the contention of

the prosecution that accused No.4 was also present at the

scene of occurrence and he also participated in commission of

NC: 2025:KHC:27310

HC-KAR

the offence. Therefore, it is stated that they have committed

the offence as alleged. After completing the investigation,

charge sheet came to be filed. Now the matter is pending in

Special Case No.5011/2025 on the file of IV Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Bhadravathi.

Hence, the appellants are before this court seeking grant of

bail.

3. Heard Sri.Karthik Suryaprakash Tayur, learned

Counsel for the appellants and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State.

Perused the materials on record.

4. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise

for my consideration is:

"Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?"

My answer to the above point is 'Partly in the Affirmative'

for the following:

NC: 2025:KHC:27310

HC-KAR

REASONS

5. It is the contention of the prosecution that there

were two groups, who were quarreling with one another very

frequently. On the date of incident, there was a first incident

where there was a quarrel, later again on the same day, ie.,

22.01.2025 at 8.45 pm., the deceased Shanthakumar was

proceeding towards his Arecanut garden on his motor cycle.

Accused Nos.1 to 4 came near the electric transformer and

waylaid him. The accused have abused him in filthy language

referring to the caste, as he belongs to scheduled caste, and

assaulted him with hands. Accused Nos.2 and 3, who were

armed with long, instigated by accused No.1 assaulted the

deceased and caused fatal injuries. In the meantime, CWs.1, 6,

9 and 11 came to the spot and shifted him to the hospital. But

on his way to the hospital, the deceased Shanthakumar

breathed his last.

6. The prosecution has cited as many as 54 witnesses,

out of them seven are eye witnesses. The statements of four

witnesses were recorded by the learned Magistrate under

Section 183 of BNSS. These witnesses have referred to the

overt act committed by accused Nos.2 and 3 that they were

NC: 2025:KHC:27310

HC-KAR

armed with longs and assaulted the deceased. It was accused

No.1, who is the main accused, who said to have the motive

and instigated accused Nos.2 and 3 to cause the death of the

deceased.

7. It is stated that the wife of accused No.1 is the

Member of the Village Panchayath. Taking advantage of that

position, accused No.1 was involved in illegal activities. Accused

Nos.2 and 3 were his henchmen. Since they suspected that

deceased Shanthakumar informed the ill-deeds of accused

Nos.1 to 3 to the Panchayath officials, they were having ill-will

against him, which led to the incident and death of deceased.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that a

counter complaint is filed by wife of accused No.1, which is

registered in Cr.No.15/2025. Obviously, the same was

subsequent to the registration of FIR in the present case.

Learned counsel also contended that, accused Nos.1 to 3 have

also sustained injuries in the incident and accused No.2 has

sustained fracture of his facial bone and all the accused have

taken treatment in the hospital. Absolutely, no materials are

placed before the Court to substantiate such contention except

the police intimation given by the private hospital regarding the

NC: 2025:KHC:27310

HC-KAR

fact that accused Nos.1 to 3 have approached the hospital with

a history of assault. There is no mention regarding sustaining of

any injury by accused Nos.1 to 3. Under such circumstances,

the police intimation or registration of the counter complaint by

the wife of the accused will not come to the rescue of accused

Nos.1 to 3, when serious allegations are made against them.

9. The postmortem report pertaining to the deceased

Shanthakumar discloses that he sustained as many as 12

injuries, which include abrasions, lacerations, chopped wound,

stabbed wound, contusion and incised wound. Admittedly, the

longs used in the commission of offence were recovered at the

instance of accused Nos.2 and 3. Considering all these facts

and circumstances, I am of the opinion, that accused Nos.1 to

3 are not entitled for grant of bail.

10. The allegations against accused No.4 is not as

serious as made against accused Nos.1 to 3. Ofcourse,

consistently the witnesses say that he was also present at the

scene of occurrence, but admittedly, he has not done any overt

act in causing the fatal injuries or causing death of the

deceased. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that

accused No.4 may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions.

NC: 2025:KHC:27310

HC-KAR

11. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that

accused Nos.1 to 4 are having criminal antecedents as accused

Nos.1 to 3 are having five other cases, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 etc and accused

No.4 is having three other cases. An opinion is already formed

that accused Nos.1 to 3 are not entitled for grant of bail, on

seriousness of the offence and materials placed before this

Court in the present case.

12. Even though accused No.4 is having three other

criminal cases registered against him, I am of the opinion that

looking into the nature of the allegations made against him, he

may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take

care of the interest of the prosecution as well as interest of the

complainant and the witnesses. It is made clear that if accused

No.4 involves in any other criminal case, the bail granted in his

favour is liable to be cancelled.

13. Accordingly, I answer the above point partly in the

Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal preferred by accused Nos.1 to 3 is

dismissed.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:27310

HC-KAR

The appeal preferred by accused No.4 is allowed.

The appellant/accused No.4 is ordered to be enlarged on

bail in Crime No.5004/2025 of Bhadravathi Rural Police Station,

on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction

of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: