Karnataka High Court
Sri. Dilip Alias Dilip Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9967
CRL.A No. 284 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.284 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. DILIP ALIAS DILIP KUMAR,
S/O LATE CHANNAKESHAVA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KUNTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY DODDABELAVANGALA P.S.,
Digitally signed
REPRESENTED BY
by DEVIKA M STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF BENGALURU-560001.
KARNATAKA
2. SRI. ARUN G.,
S/O GANGADHAR,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/AT KACHERIPALYA,
29TH WARD,
DODDABALLAPUR TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9967
CRL.A No. 284 of 2025
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)
(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 25.01.2025 ON THE BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY
THE ACCUSED NO.1/APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 439 OF CRPC
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT
BENGALURU AND TO CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE THE ACCUSED
NO.1/APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.182/2023 FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 143,
149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(5) OF SC/ST (POA) 1989
REGISTERED BY THE DODDABELAVANAGALA POLICE, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT AT
BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.61/2024.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent No.1 State.
The respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that the sister of the appellant is suffering from kidney disease.
The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the
discharge summary of Anusha, aged about 27 years and final
diagnosis is CKD Stage 5 on conservative management, basic
disease - hypertensive nephrosclerosis (global sclerosis - 80%,
severe IFTA - 70%), arterial hypertension and also pre-existing
medical conditions and medications on presentation and also
NC: 2025:KHC:9967
with regard to course in hospital and major events during
admission and patient came with above complaints and also
diagnosed that post procedure there were no complications.
Renal biopsy showed features of hypertensive nephrosclerosis
with 80% global sclerosis and severe IFTA of 70%. Currently
the patient is not dialysis dependent. Patient was counselled
regarding renal transplant and regular follow up. Patient is
hemodynamically stable and hence being discharged with the
following advise. Serum creatinine at the time of discharge is
5.5 mg/dl with good urine output. Renal biopsy was done on
30.09.2024 and condition on discharge is stable.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
earlier also the appellant had approached this Court in
Crl.A.No.2102/2024, wherein submission was made that the
very same ground was not urged before the Trial Court and
hence this Court permitted to withdraw the appeal and approach
the Trial Court on medical grounds, which have been urged
before this Court vide order dated 18.12.2024. The learned
counsel brought to the notice of this Court that the Trial Court
rejected the bail petition only on the ground that the appellant
has not produced any medical documents to show that the
condition of the sister of the appellant is such that there is
NC: 2025:KHC:9967
urgent requirement of kidney transplantation. The learned
counsel brought to the notice of this Court the discharge
summary, wherein it is categorically mentioned regarding renal
transplantation to his sister and the same has not been
considered by the Trial Court and the Trial Court failed to
consider the same and for limited period bail may be granted in
favour of the appellant.
4. The learned Additional SPP appearing for the
respondent State would contend that the Trial Court has given
the reason that no document is placed before the Court that the
sister of the appellant is in urgent need of requirement of kidney
transplantation. Having considered the document of discharge
summary placed before the Court, dated 04.10.2024, the
learned counsel submits that a conditional order may be passed
only for transplantation with stringent conditions.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent State
and also considering the grounds which have been urged in the
appeal, this Court had rejected the appeal on merits vide order
dated 16.05.2024. Subsequently, the appellant approached this
Court by filing Crl.A.No.2102/2024 and liberty was given to
NC: 2025:KHC:9967
approach the Trial Court and the Trial Court dismissed the
petition in coming to the conclusion that no documentary
evidence is placed before the Court regarding kidney
transplantation. Having considered the document which is
placed before the Court, the report is very clear that the patient
was counselled regarding renal transplantation and regular
follow up and such course was made in the hospital and biopsy
was conducted on 30.09.2024. The learned counsel for the
appellant submits that if the appellant is subjected to
examination and if the kidney is not suitable to his sister, he will
surrender before the Trial Court.
6. Having considered the said submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is granted bail to
subject him for medical check up with regard to suitability of
kidney for transplantation in favour of his sister and one month's
time is granted for medical check up and suitability of kidney for
transplantation and if the kidney is suitable, the same is granted
for a period of three months and if the kidney is not suitable,
the appellant shall surrender within one month. With that
condition, the appellant is enlarged on bail. The appellant shall
execute a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties before the
NC: 2025:KHC:9967
Trial Court and during this period he shall not tamper or make
any attempt to tamper the prosecution witnesses.
7. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
