Karnataka High Court
Darshan @ Darshangowda. M. K vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11101
CRL.A No.2347 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2347 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. DARSHAN @ DARSHANGOWDA M.K.
S/O KUSHAL,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT. MALAGALU VILLAGE,
MARASANDRA BEEDHI,
KANAKAPURA TOWN AND TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562117.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. ANAND GANESH M, ADVOCATE FOR
KARNATAKA SMT. USHA DEVI K.G. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KANAKAPURA TOWN P.S.,
NOW REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001.
2. GOVINDARAJU,
S/O LATE VENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
3. ANISHKUMAR,
S/O VYRAMUDI,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
4. LAKSHMANA,
S/O LATE VENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11101
CRL.A No.2347 of 2024
5. LATHA,
D/O CHALUVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.
6. THEJASWINI,
D/O LAKSHMAN,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
7. CHAITANYA,
S/O GOVINDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
8. SMT. MADHU,
W/O GOVINDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT. SIDDAPPAJI
TEMPLE ROAD, MALAGALU,
KANAKAPURA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562117.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. AVANI CHOKSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R8)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL,
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT DATED
08.11.2024 IN CRL.MISC.NO.860/2024 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAMANAGARA, ENLARGE THE
APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPL.CASE (SC/ST) NO.142/2024
PENDING BEFORE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 189(2), 191(2), 191(3),
115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 76, 109(1), 329(4), 61(2), 54,
324(4) R/W 190 OF BNS 2023 AND SEC.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT ARISED OUT OF
CR.NO.112/2024 BY KANAKAPURA TOWN P.S.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:11101
CRL.A No.2347 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1
State and the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent
Nos.2 to 8.
2. The case of the prosecution against this appellant,
who has been arrayed as accused No.7, is that he was very
much present at the time of the incident and he pulled the cloth
of C.W.5 and kicked. The allegation against accused No.1 is
that he inflicted injury with long on C.W.2. As a result, when
C.W.2 tried to ward off the said blow, put across the left hand,
as a result, his left hand was amputated and when C.W.2 tried
to escape from the spot, he was chased and inflicted injury and
with an intention to take away the life of C.W.1 and C.W.3,
accused No.5 also inflicted injury on C.W.2 with long on his
head. Accused No.3 also assaulted C.W.1 with the long and
specific overt-act allegations are made against accused Nos.1, 3
and 5 that they inflicted injury on C.W.1 to C.W.3.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant is the friend of accused No.1 and hence he has
NC: 2025:KHC:11101
been falsely implicated in the case. The learned counsel
contend that except he pulled the cloth of C.W.5 and kicked, no
other allegation is made against the appellant and the said
allegation is made only to implicate this appellant as an accused.
This appellant is in custody from 24.07.2024 and the presence
of this appellant is not required since investigation has been
completed and omnibus allegation is made to attract Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the Schedules Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('SC/ST Act' for
short) and hence the said offence also not comes in the way of
granting bail in favour of the appellant.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State would contend that
attack was made with deadly weapon long and C.W.1 to C.W.3
have sustained injuries and there are grievous injuries. The
Court has to take note of the common object that all of them
gathered and went near the house of the complainants and
inflicted injury and though this appellant has not inflicted injury
with any deadly weapon, but he has shared the common object
and hence he is not entitled for bail.
NC: 2025:KHC:11101
5. The learned counsel for the
complainants/respondent Nos.2 to 8 would contend that the
Court has to take note of the very presence of this appellant
along with unlawful assembly and causing of grievous injury.
The learned counsel contend that there was an amputation of
the left hand of C.W.2 and the Court has to take note of the
common object in inflicting injury and hence the appellant is not
entitled for bail.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant,
the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1 State and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 8,
the specific overt-act allegation made against this appellant is
that he pulled the cloth of C.W.5 and kicked. No doubt, the
prosecution relies upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses C.W.4
to C.W.10 and C.W.5 also speaks about the overt-act of this
appellant. Taking note of the overt-act allegation that he pulled
the cloth and kicked and he had not used any deadly weapon in
causing any injury to C.W.5 and no wound certificate is placed
on record to show C.W.5 sustained injury, hence, it is a fit case
to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant/accused
No.7 by imposing certain conditions to safeguard the interest of
the prosecution.
NC: 2025:KHC:11101
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal appeal is allowed.
(ii) The appellant is granted bail subject to the
appellant executing his personal bond for a
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)
with two sureties for the like-sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(iii) The appellant shall not indulge in tampering
the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The appellant shall appear before the
jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing
dates, unless exempted by the Court for any
genuine cause.
(v) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the Trial Court without prior permission of the
Court till the case registered against him is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
