Karnataka High Court
Sri Prashanth K vs State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:28109
CRL.A No. 1392 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1395 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1392 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1395 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
IN CRL.A NO. 1392/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PRASHANTH .K,
S/O. KRISHNANAIK
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT: BUDNAHATTI, CHALLAKERE,
CHITRADURGA - 577 543
INDICATED IN CHARGESHEET AS:
SRI. PRASHANTH, S/O. KRISHNA NAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT: HOSURU,
NAYAKANAHATTI ROAD, CHALLAKERE
TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 577 543
2. SRI. NAVEENA
Digitally signed S/O. KRISHNEGOWDA
by SWAPNA V AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
Location: High R/AT RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI
Court of
Karnataka MALLIKANTHPURA, HASSAN - 573133
INDICATED AS CHARGESHEET AS
SRI. NAVEEN S/O. KRISHNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT
MALLINATHAPURA VILLAGE,
RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI,
ARKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN -573133
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MADANAYAKANAHALLY POLICE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:28109
CRL.A No. 1392 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1395 of 2025
HC-KAR
STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 562 123. REP BY:
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SRI. SUNIL
S/O. CHANNAMALLAPPPA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT BINNAMANGALA,
NELAMANAGALA TOWN,
KOHINUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
BASAVAKALYANA TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 585327
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1
R2 - SD)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015
PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2025 IN
CRL.MISC. NO.1060/2025, PASSED BY THE II ADDL.DIST. AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, AT BENGALURU THEREBY
REJECTING THE BAIL PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS, VIDE
ANNEXURE A. B. GRANT BAIL TO THE APPELLANTS WHO ARRAYED
AS ACCUSED NO.3 AND 4 IN SPL.C NO.1048/2024 (ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.861/2024 OF RESPONDENT POLICE) PENDING BEFORE THE II
ADDITIONAL DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, AT
BENGALURU FOR THE O/P/US/ 140(1), 103, 118(1) R/W 3(5) OF THE
BNS AND SEC. 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(V) OF THE SC AND ST (POA) ACT,
1989, WITH ANY REASONABLE CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT BY
THIS HONBLE COURT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:28109
CRL.A No. 1392 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1395 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN CRL.A NO. 1395/2025
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHETAN K R,
S/O. RAMESHAPPA K N,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT: #196, KURUBARAHALLI,
KANGAVALLI, KONGUVALLI HOSADURGA,
CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA - 577 515.
INDICATED IN CHARGE SHEET AS
SRI. CHETAN K R, S/O. RAMESHAPPA,
R/AT KANGUVALLI, KASABA HOBALI,
HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA,
KARNATAKA - 577 515.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MADANAYAKANAHALLY POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 562 123. REP BY:
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SRI. SUNIL
S/O. CHANNAMALLAPPPA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT BINNAMANGALA,
NELAMANAGALA TOWN,
KOHINUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
BASAVAKALYANA TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 585327
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1
R2 - SD)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015
PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2025 IN
CRL.MISC. NO.1070/2025, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:28109
CRL.A No. 1392 of 2025
C/W CRL.A No. 1395 of 2025
HC-KAR
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, AT BENGALURU THEREBY
REJECTING THE BAIL PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT, VIDE
ANNEXURE A. 2. GRANT BAIL TO THE APPELLANT WHO ARRAYED AS
ACCUSED NO.2 IN SPL.C NO.1048/2024 (ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.0861/2024 OF RESPONDENT MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE)
PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL, AT BENGALURU FOR THE O/P/US/ 140(1), 103,
118(1) R/W 3(5) OF THE BNS AND SEC. 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(V) OF THE
SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Accused No.2 in Crl.A.No.1395/2025, accused Nos.3 and
4 in Crl.A.No.1392/2025 are before this Court seeking grant of
bail under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) in Crime
No.861/2024 of Madanayakanahally Police Station, pending in
Spl.C.No.1048/2024 before the learned II Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 140(1), 103, 118(1)
r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of
NC: 2025:KHC:28109
HC-KAR
the SC/ST Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by
informant-Sunil.
2. Heard Sri Amar Correa, learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the
materials on record.
3. 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 14A(2) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the
following:
REASONS
4. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the
deceased and his brother - CW1 were known to accused Nos. 1
to 4. On 06.10.2024, a quarrel broke out when the deceased -
Anil asked accused No.1 for gas cylinder, and the accused had
refused the give the same. On the same day at 6.00 pm, the
deceased summoned CW1 near his house and abused CWs.19
NC: 2025:KHC:28109
HC-KAR
and 20. Accused No.2 came to the spot and abused CW1 in
filthy language by referring to his caste with an intention to
humiliate him. During the intervening night of 06/07.10.2024
at about 00.30 hours, accused Nos. 1 to 4 came to the house of
the deceased, and abused him in filthy language. Accused No.1
assaulted him with hands, accused Nos.2 and 3 have kicked on
his stomach, while accused Nos. 2 and 4 have assaulted him
with a riper piece. As a result of which, the injured-Anil fell
down with severe pain. The accused have also assaulted CW1 -
the brother of the deceased with hands.
5. The injured was taken to the private hospital i.e.,
Care Asia Hospital only on 07.10.2024 at 9.50 pm with a
history of assault. The hospital record discloses that, he was
not in a condition to give any statement. He died on
09.10.2024 at 6.41am.
6. As per inquest mahazar and the post mortem
report, surgical wound was found on the abdomen and death
was due to septicemia as a result of peritonitis consequent
upon blunt trauma to abdomen. Prima facie, no external
injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased, but
surgical wound was found on the abdomen. It reveals that, in
NC: 2025:KHC:28109
HC-KAR
the incident, the deceased must have sustained internal injuries
and later, he died due to septicemia.
7. It is stated that CW1 being the brother of deceased
is the injured eye-witness. There are other two independent
eye-witnesses to the incident, who have given their statement
regarding the overt act committed by the accused. After
investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. The Investigating
Officer has cited in all 49 witnesses in support of its contention.
There are strong prima facie materials against the accused for
having committed the offence. But since the investigation is
already completed, there are no reasons to compel the accused
to be detained in custody. It is stated that, they do not have
any criminal antecedents. Under such circumstances, their
detention in custody would amount to infringement to their
right to life and liberty. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
appellants may be granted bail subject to conditions which will
take care of the interest of the prosecution as well as interest
of the complainant and the witnesses.
8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:28109
HC-KAR
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in
Crime No. 861/2024 of Madanayakanahally Police Station, on
obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Rupees
Two Lakhs only) with two sureties each for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following
conditions:
a). The appellants shall not commit similar
offences.
b). The appellants shall not threaten or tamper
with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The appellants shall appear before the Court
as and when required.
If in case, the appellants violates any of the conditions as
stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the
Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
NC: 2025:KHC:28109
HC-KAR
On furnishing the sureties by the appellants, the Trial
Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify
the correctness of the address and authenticity of the
documents furnished by the appellants and the sureties and a
report may be called for in that regard, which is to be
submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial
Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for
the purpose of releasing the appellants on bail.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
SPV
CT:VS
