Karnataka High Court
Gowtham R vs The State By Srinivasapura Police on 14 March, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10645
CRL.A No. 2150 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 2288 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2150 OF 2024
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2288 OF 2024
IN CRL.A No.2150/2024:
BETWEEN:
GOWTHAM R,
S/O. RAVANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT - CENTERING WORK
R/AT C/O. BATTARA GOPALAPPA, RANGA ROAD
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN AND TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE BY SRINIVASAPURA POLICE
COURT OF KOLAR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA RPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. AMARANATHA S.,
S/O. SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT. DAYANANDA ROAD
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10645
CRL.A No. 2150 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 2288 of 2024
3. DR. CHANDRAKALA
W/O LATE SRINIVASAN
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
JAKIR HUSSAIN MOHALLA
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. ABHINAYA K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. C.H.HANUMANTHARAYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)
(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 25.07.2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR SPL.S.C.NO.3/2024 AND
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.372/2023 OF
SRINIVASAPURA POLICE STATION, KOLAR DISTRICT, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 109, 212,
307, 302, 201 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION
3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST ACT 1986 AND ETC.
IN CRL.A NO.2288/2024:
BETWEEN:
CHANDAN S.,
S/O SRINIVAS V,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
OCC: STUDENT
R/AT JAGAJEEVANAPALYA
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN AND TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:10645
CRL.A No. 2150 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 2288 of 2024
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SRINIVASAPURA POLICE
KOLAR DISTRICT
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. AMARANATHA S,
S/O SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT DAYANANDA ROAD
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
3. DR. CHANDRAKALA
W/O LATE SRINIVASAN
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
JAKIR HUSSAIN MOHALLA
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. ABHINAYA K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. C.H.HANUMANTHARAYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3
NOTICE TO R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A19) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2024 PASSED BY THE II
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR
SPL.S.C.NO.3/2024 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.372/2023 OF SRINIVASAPURA POLICE
STATION, KOLAR DISTRICT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 109,
212, 307, 302, 201 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) 1986 AND ETC.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:10645
CRL.A No. 2150 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 2288 of 2024
THESE APPEALS 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 appearing for the respective
appellants, the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.3 in both the appeals.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that the complainant one Amarnatha S lodged a complaint
alleging that on 23.10.2023 at about 12.15 p.m, when he along
with one Srinivas, Krishna and a security guard were sitting
under a mango tree having tea, at that time, six persons
arrived in two motor bikes and among them, one person was
holding a cement gunny bag and they came near Srinivas and
one person gave shake hand saying uncle how are you, by
then, another person sprayed some liquid on the face of
Srinivas and all of a sudden, took the knife, long and talwar
from the cement gunny bag and assaulted Srinivas all over his
body. They also tried to assault complainant and other persons
NC: 2025:KHC:10645
who were present at the spot. When the complainant shouted
for help, all the persons ran away from the spot. The
complainant called Manjunath and Pradeep over phone and he
along with Krishna and Rajesh took the injured Srinivas to the
Government hospital, Srinivasapura wherein the doctors
advised to take him to Devaraj Urs Medical College, Kolar. At
about 1.50, the doctors of Devaraj Urs Medical college hospital
declared the death of Srinivas. Hence, case has been registered
and the police have investigated the matter and filed the
charge-sheet against these appellants as well as other accused
persons and these appellants are arrayed as accused Nos.8 and
5 respectively.
3. The counsel for the respective appellants would
vehemently contend that offences invoked against the accused
persons are Sections 120B, 109, 212, 307, 302, 201 read with
Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act,
1986. The counsel would vehemently contend that these
appellants are innocents and allegations made against these
two appellants that though they were at the spot, there is no
overt act allegation against them and the only allegation in the
charge-sheet that they were watching at the time of the
NC: 2025:KHC:10645
incident. The counsel also would vehemently contend that
accused No.8 is arrested on 30.10.2023 and accused No.5 is
arrested on 27.10.2023 and the counsel also would vehemently
contend that even eye-witnesses statement was recorded by
the investigating officer and eye-witnesses also not spoken
anything about the overt acts against these two appellants and
investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed and hence,
continuing these appellants in custody is not needed.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3
contend that there were 31 injuries on the body of the
deceased and there is a recovery at the instance of these
appellants i.e., the mobile and two wheeler. Learned counsel
would contend that when both of them have given consent and
not subjected for Polygraph test, learned counsel would
contend that 164 statement of the witnesses were recorded
and specifically stated that all of them were there at the spot
and they came along with deadly weapons in a two wheeler and
he was chased and he escaped from the clutches of the
appellants and inflicted injuries with the deadly weapons on the
said Srinivas and he escaped from the spot jumping the
compound. Immediately, they called Punith and Ananth and
NC: 2025:KHC:10645
after arrival of those persons, when they went to spot, he had
sustained injuries, immediately he was taken to hospital and
164 statement is also evident with regard to the presence of
these appellants. Hence, not entitled for bail.
5. Learned Additional SPP for the respondent No.1-
State in his argument would vehemently contend that Court
has to take note of nature of injuries sustained by the victim
and also brought to notice of this Court PM report which depicts
31 injuries which are caused using talwar and deadly weapons
and cause of death is also on account of multiple injuries
sustained. Hence, they are not entitled for bail. He also
brought to notice of this Court that very C.W.1 made specific
averment in the complaint itself that these two appellants came
along with other accused persons in two wheeler and removed
deadly weapons from the gunny bag and inflicted injuries and
detailed complaint was given which runs about pages and
voluntary statement given by the accused is very clear with
regard to committing of murder and recovery is also made at
the instance of other accused and two wheeler and mobile was
NC: 2025:KHC:10645
seized at the instance of these appellants. Hence, not entitled
for bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned HCGP for the respondent No.1-State as well as learned
counsel for respondent No.3 and also objection statement filed
by respondent No.3 before this Court, incident has taken place
on 23.10.2023 at about 12.15 p.m. The specific case of the
prosecution is that when the complainant was there along with
Srinivas, Krishna and a security guard and all of them were
sitting under a mango tree, these appellants came along with
other accused in a two wheeler and sprayed some liquid on the
face of Srinivas and all of a sudden, removed knife, long and
talwar from the cement gunny bag and assaulted Srinivas.
Having perused column No.17 of the charge-sheet also, specific
allegation is made against these accused persons that at the
time of inflicting injuries with deadly weapons i.e., knife and
talwar, accused Nos.5 and 8 came along with accused persons
and at that time, C.Ws.1, 2 and 3, who are eye witnesses to
the incident were present and accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 inflicted
injuries. At that time, these accused persons were guarding the
other accused persons to inflict injuries and so also, very same
NC: 2025:KHC:10645
allegation is made against accused No.5 and the very presence
of these accused person is spoken by C.Ws.1 to 3 and also 164
statement was recorded before the learned Magistrate and they
have reiterated the presence of the accused persons.
7. No doubt, learned counsel for the appellants would
contend that there is no overt act allegation against these
appellants, but the direct evidence before the Court is that
these accused persons came in a two wheeler and all of a
sudden, removed the deadly weapons and assaulted Srinivas
and there is a recovery of motorcycle and mobile which belongs
to them. When such recovery is made and these two appellants
were present at the time of incident and evidence of the eye
witnesses was also recorded and allegation is that they
conspired with each other and came with deadly weapon and
inflicted injury. When such offences are invoked and PM report
also clearly disclose that death is due to multiple injury
sustained and there were 31 stab injuries and barbaric act was
done, this Court at this stage cannot segregate the intention of
each of the accused, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court
in KUMER SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND
ANOTHER reported n (2021) 6 SCJ 227. Hence, when such
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10645
material is available before the Court, it is not a fit case to
exercise the discretion in favour of the appellants and it is not a
case for granting bail in favour of the appellants.
Accordingly, the appeals are rejected.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN/ST
