Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Lakshmisha on 2 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18492
CRL.A No. 611 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 611 OF 2022 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP.)
AND:
1. LAKSHMISHA
S/O NINGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/O KALLESOMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
A.D. COLONY, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116
2. PRAJWAL C.S.
Digitally signed S/O SWAMY
by SWAPNA V AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
Location: High R/O NAGASAMUDRA ROAD,
Court of
Karnataka A.D. COLONY, CHANNARAYAPATNA
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT BY
THE S.P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO A) ALLOW THIS APPEAL. B)
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2021 PASSED IN
CRL.MISC.NO.1300/2021 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, THEREBY ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS / ACCUSED U/S 341, 504,
307 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(R)(S) AND 3(2)(VA) OF
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18492
CRL.A No. 611 of 2022
HC-KAR
SC/ST (POA) ACT. C) DIRECT THAT THE ACCUSED / RESPONDENT BE
ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY.
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 state has come up with an appeal seeking
cancellation of bail granted in favour of respondent
No.1/accused No.1 vide order dated 30.10.2021 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.1300/2021 on the file of the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Hassan for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 504, 307 R/w Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and
3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.1 is
charged for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504,
307 R/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va)
of the Act, on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent
NC: 2025:KHC:18492
HC-KAR
No.2. The Trial Court while allowing Crl.Misc.No.1300/2021
passed an order on 30.10.2021 granting anticipatory bail and
ordered to release respondent No.1 in case of his arrest,
subject to conditions. Being aggrieved by the same, the
prosecution is before this Court seeking cancellation of
anticipatory bail.
4. Heard Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional
Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State. Perused the
materials including the Trial Court records.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
Additional SPP, the point that would arise for my consideration
is:
"Whether the anticipatory bail granted in
favour of respondent No.1 by the Trial Court suffers
from perversity or illegality and calls for
interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' and pass
the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:18492
HC-KAR
REASONS
6. The only ground urged by the learned Additional
SPP to allow the appeal is that serious allegations are made
against respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under
Section 307 of IPC and under the Provisions the Act. The victim
belongs to scheduled caste and under such circumstances, the
Trial Court could not have granted anticipatory bail in favour of
respondent No.1.
7. The materials on record disclose that the date of
offence is on 25.08.2021. Misc.No.1300/2021 was allowed vide
order dated 30.10.2021 granting anticipatory bail. Immediately
thereafter, respondent No.1 complied with the conditions
imposed while granting anticipatory bail. It is not the
contention of the appellant that respondent No.1 has violated
any of the conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail.
Under such circumstances, even though serious allegations are
made against respondent No.1, I do not find any grounds to
allow the appeal for canceling anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
Negative and proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:18492
HC-KAR
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
BH
