Karnataka High Court
Sri Yogesh Kumar V @ Handi vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11058
CRL.A No. 1335 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1335 OF 2024 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
SRI. YOGESH KUMAR V @ HANDI
S/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.23, 5TH CROSS,
MANIVILAS GARDEN, MARUTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 079.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. CHANDRANNA N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
LAKSHMI T 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: BY BASAVESHWARA NAGAR
HIGH COURT
OF POLICE STATION,
KARNATAKA BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SRI. JAGADISH KUMAR K.B.
S/O BORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.384, 3RD CROSS,
2ND CROSS, MULAKATTAMMA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11058
CRL.A No. 1335 of 2024
TEMPLE ROAD, KAMALANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 079.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. T. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2024
PASSED IN SPL.CASE NO.170/2020 (IN CRIME NO.391/2019
OF BASAVESHWARANAGAR POLICE) ON THE FILE OF THE LXX
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE
AT BENGALURU (CCH-71) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v)
OF S.C./S.T PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT, 1989 AND TO
GRANT INTERIM BAIL TO THE APPELLANT FOR A PERIOD OF 3
MONTHS TO ENABLE HIM TO UNDERGO SURGERY IN THE FREE
ATMOSPHERES AS HE DESIRES IN ANY PRIVATE HOSPITAL
BENGALURU WITH THE COMPANY OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS TO
SAVE HIS LIFE IN THE ABOVE CASE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGEMENT, THIS DAY, PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
DATE OF RESERVED THE JUDGMENT : 28.02.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT : 18.03.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:11058
CRL.A No. 1335 of 2024
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the order dated
15.4.2024 passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru in Spl.Case
No.170/2020, wherein the learned Sessions Judge has
rejected the bail application filed by the accused/appellant.
2. The appellant is seeking to set aside the
impugned order and to enlarge him on bail in the above
case pending before the learned Special Judge, arising out
of Cr.No.391/2019 of Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station.
3. This is the fourth successive prayer made by
the accused before this Court, to enlarge him on bail. This
Court has already rejected the prayer for bail in
Crl.A.No.7197/2020 vide order dated 7.12.2020,
Crl.A.No.512/2022 vide order dated 19.4.2022 and
Crl.A.No.2078/2023 vide order dated 11.12.2023.
NC: 2025:KHC:11058
4. The present appeal is preferred praying to
enlarge the accused on bail on medical grounds and on the
ground of delay in trial.
5. Briefly stated, it is the case of prosecution that
on account of previous enmity, on 14.12.2019 at about
10.15 p.m., appellant/accused No.1 committed the murder
of one Sadashivamurthy by assaulting him with a chopper
on his chest, neck and head.
6. The learned counsel contended that the
appellant/accused No.1 was arrested on 2.1.2020 and he
is incarcerated behind bars for five years. He is the only
earning member of the family and there is no one to look
after his aged parents.
7. The learned counsel further contended that
there are 45 charge sheet witnesses and therefore, the
prosecution may take long time to conclude the trial,
hence, the appellant has to suffer behind bars till then.
Further, the prosecution has filed an application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. to add some more accused and the
NC: 2025:KHC:11058
learned Sessions Judge has allowed the said application,
as against which, they have approached this Court for
quashing the proceedings and the same is pending.
8. The learned counsel has further contended that
the appellant is suffering from major health problem and
due to complication in the spinal cord he was taken to
Victoria Hospital and according to the reports, he is
suffering from Lumbar Spondylosis and Disc bulge
at L2 - L3 level and he is facing unbearable pain and if a
surgery is not conducted, he will be put to untold
hardship.
9. It is also contended by the learned counsel that
the eyewitnesses and other material witnesses examined
in this case have turned hostile and therefore, further
detention of the appellant will amount to pre-trial
conviction.
10. While disposing of Crl.A.No.512/2022, appellant
was permitted to move the Sessions Court for bail after
the examination of eyewitnesses namely CWs.12 and 13.
NC: 2025:KHC:11058
Subsequent to their examination, the learned Sessions
Judge rejected his bail application, wherefore, he preferred
Crl.A.No.2078/2023 before this Court. While dismissing
the said appeal, this Court has taken into consideration
the hostility of CWs.12 and 13, examined as PWs.4 and 3
before the trial Court. However, since the prosecution is
also relying on circumstantial evidence, the said appeal
was dismissed directing the trial Court to expedite the trial
and also reserving liberty to the appellant to move the
Sessions Court on any changed circumstances.
11. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 has filed statement of objections, wherein he has
contended that the prosecution case is based on
eyewitnesses, digital evidence and circumstantial
evidence. It is contended that the complainant has
identified the appellant as the accused who assaulted the
deceased, from the CCTV camera footage. It is further
contended that the witnesses were won over by the
accused persons.
NC: 2025:KHC:11058
12. The learned HCGP appearing for the State has
contended that the learned Sessions Judge has thoroughly
considered the medical grounds urged by the appellant
and as there was no need for immediate surgery, directed
Superintendent of Central Prison to get the opinion of the
Specialist. He has further contended that the appellant has
3 more cases registered against him in the past. He
submitted that the trial Court may be directed to expedite
the trial as most of the witnesses are already examined.
13. The learned counsel for appellant has relied on
a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Thapas Kumar
Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in
2025 SCC online SC 322 and stressed on the
observations made at para-14, wherein it is observed that
"if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of
6-7 years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely,
it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under
Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed. The
NC: 2025:KHC:11058
stress of long trials on accused persons who remain
innocent until proven guilty - can also be significant."
14. This Court has already rejected the prayer of
the appellant/accused No.1 for bail, considering the
gravity of the offence and the material collected against
him. The case of prosecution is not just based on the
evidence of eyewitnesses, but also on circumstantial
evidence. The incarceration undergone by the appellant
by itself is not a ground to enlarge him on bail, considering
that the offence alleged is heinous in nature, punishable
with death or imprisonment for life. The conduct of the
accused also play an important role while considering the
bail application. Against the appellant, 3 more cases were
registered in Cr.No.362/2006 under Section 399 and 402
IPC at Basaveshwaranagar Police Station, Cr.No.400/2016
under Section 506, 364A, 120B, 448, 342 IPC at HSR
Layout Police Station and Cr.No.69/2007 under Section
379 IPC at Rajagopalanagar Police Station. A rowdy sheet
was opened against him at Basaveshwaranagar Police
NC: 2025:KHC:11058
Station, as per the report of Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Vijayanagar Sub-Division, Bangalore City. While
granting or refusing the bail, the nature and gravity of the
crime, potential threat to the victims and the prosecution
witnesses, possibility of accused fleeing from justice and
getting involved in similar or other crimes have to be
taken into consideration.
15. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the
trial is in progress and most of the witnesses have been
examined. As per prosecution, conclusion of trial may not
take a long time.
16. Insofar as the medical grounds urged by the
appellant, it is submitted that there is bulging of anterior
thecal sac at L2 and L3 level causing mild spinal canal
stenosis. Further, there is moderate spinal canal stenosis
at L4-L5 level. The appellant was treated at Victoria
Hospital. According to the learned counsel, the accused
requires surgery in a proper hospital.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11058
17. The learned Sessions Judge has taken into
consideration the medical grounds urged by the appellant.
Accused is being provided medical treatment. It is
observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the accused
has not made any prayer or allegation that he is not
getting any proper medical attention in central prison. The
ailment or suffering of the accused does not obliges to
consider the prayer since it is not a serious ailment. While
rejecting the bail application, the learned Sessions judge
has directed the Superintendent of Central Prison to get
the opinion of the Spinal Cord Specialist with regard to
plan of surgery/ non-availability of any of such facility of
the medical condition of the accused. Hence, the
appellant can approach the Sessions Court for appropriate
direction.
18. For the forgoing reasons, appeal is dismissed.
Pending I.As. stand disposed of.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11058
19. The Sessions Court is however, directed to
expedite the trial, keeping in view the incarceration
undergone by the appellant.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
TL
Ct:ar
