Karnataka High Court
Lingaraju vs The State on 3 March, 2025
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1397
CRL.A No. 200045 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200045 OF 2025 [U/S 14 (A)]
BETWEEN:
LINGARAJU
S/O BASAVANAPPA NIMBURE,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NIRNAWADI, TQ. CHITGUPPA,
BIDAR-585412.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VISHAL PRATAP SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE, THROUGH MANNAEKHELLI PS,
Digitally signed by
CHITGUPPA DIST. BIDAR
BASALINGAPPA REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON HIGH COURT KALABURAGI BENCH,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KALABURAGI-585412.
KARNATAKA
2. NEELKANTH S/O MALLIKARJUN RAJGIRE,
AGE: 19 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NIRNAWADI TQ. CHITAGUPPA,
BIDAR-585412.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI YASHA S. DIKSHIT, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1397
CRL.A No. 200045 of 2025
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A
(2) OF THE SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 24.07.2024 IN CRL.MISC.NO.5158/2024 AND
TO GRANT THE RELIEF OF REGULAR BAIL TO THE APPELLANT
ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRIME NO.5/2024
REGISTERED BY THE MANNEKHALLI PS, BIDAR AND CHARGED
WITH OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147,
148, 341, 307, 324, 302, 504, 506 READ WITH 149 OF THE IPC
A/W S 3(2)(V) AND 3(2)(VA) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the appellant/accused No.1 under
Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 for granting bail
by setting aside the order of dismissal of bail application
dated 24.07.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.5158/2024 filed by the
appellant.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1 - State and also learned counsel for respondent No.2
- complainant.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1397
3. On the complaint of respondent No.2, the
Mannaekhelli police registered FIR in Crime No.5/2024
against the petitioner and 9 others for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307 324,
341, 504 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections
3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PA) Act.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on
10.01.2024 at about 3.30 p.m., at the request of accused
No.1 the officers of the Survey Department had arrived at
the disputed property for the purpose of conducting
survey. Since the deceased did not agree for conducting
survey the officers of the Survey Department had left the
spot. Thereafter, the accused persons tried to remove the
boundary stones from the property in dispute and this was
objected to by the deceased. The accused persons, who
were armed with weapons, started abusing the deceased
and accused No.1/appellant is alleged to have assaulted
the deceased on his head with an axe, accused No.2 is
alleged to have assaulted the deceased on his left hand
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1397
with a dragger and accused No.4 is alleged to have
assaulted the deceased on his left hand with a spade.
When CW-1 and CW-16 tried to interfere, other accused
persons allegedly assaulted them. As a result of the
assault made on the deceased, he succumbed to the
injuries at the spot.
5. After registering the FIR, police arrested the
appellant on 11.01.2024. He was remanded to judicial
custody. His bail petition came to be rejected by the Trial
Court vide impugned order dated 24.07.2024. Feeling
aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly
contended that the appellant is in judicial custody for
almost 1 year 2 months. The accused Nos.2 to 4 are
already granted bail by the Co-ordinate bench of this
Court. The trial is yet to begin. Charges were framed and
it is not possible to conclude the trial in near future.
Therefore, he prays for granting bail.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1397
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State objecting the
appeal contended that appellant/ accused No.1 has
assaulted the deceased on his head with an axe and due
to this assault, the death has occurred. As per the
postmortem report the death is due to head injury. He
further submits that if the appellant is granted bail, he
would tamper the eyewitnesses and threaten them.
Hence, he prayed for dismissing the appeal.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/
complainant seriously objected the appeal contending that
because of the assault of this appellant the death has
occurred. The other accused have assaulted the deceased
on hands, which would not lead to death. Therefore, the
appellant is not entitled for bail. CWs-1, 6, 9, 17 to 22 are
the eyewitnesses cited in the charge sheet. Hence, the
appellant is not entitled for bail and prayed for dismissal of
the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1397
9. I have heard the arguments and perused the
records. Admittedly, the Co-ordinate bench has granted
bail to accused No.2 in Criminal Petition No.200169/2024
dated 15.07.2024. On the basis of bail granted to accused
No.2, accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 10 approached this Court in
Criminal Petition No.200223/2024 and connected matters
and the Co-ordinate bench granted them bail on
25.09.2024. This appellant is in judicial custody from 1
year 2 months. On careful reading of the judgment
passed by the Co-ordinate bench, it is categorically
observed that the main allegation is against accused
No.1/appellant who has assaulted the deceased on his
head which caused head injury and due to which the death
has occurred. By observing so, the co-ordinate bench
granted bail to accused No.2. Even while granting bail to
other accused, the co-ordinate bench has made similar
observation. The postmortem report also reveals cause of
death was due to head injury. The overt acts against the
other accused who are granted bail is that of assault on
the hands of the deceased, which do not lead to death.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1397
10. During the course of argument it is contended
that there was no intention of the accused to commit the
murder of the deceased. Even if it is considered that for
surveying the land the accused were possessing the
weapons, the question of carrying the axe by the accused
persons does not arise, as it is the duty of the Survey
Department to bring the material to measure the land and
fix the boundaries. Such being the case, at this stage it
cannot be considered that there was no intention of the
appellant to commit the murder. Therefore, I am of the
view that when CWs-1, 6, 9, 17 to 22 are cited as
eyewitnesses and CW-1 and CW-16 being the injured
eyewitnesses, there is every possibility of the appellant
tampering the eyewitnesses and injured persons, and the
same cannot be ruled out. Until examination of material
witnesses, this appellant is not entitled for bail.
11. The Trial Court, considering the facts and
circumstances, has rightly rejected the bail application of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1397
the appellant. Therefore, the same does not call for any
interference.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Liberty is granted to the appellant to approach the
Trial Court after examination of the material witnesses and
the Trial Court shall consider the same.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
SWK
CT:SI
