Karnataka High Court
Basavaraju @ B N Ramesh vs State By V V Puram Police Station on 18 March, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11158
CRL.A No. 1484 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1484 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJU @ B N RAMESH
S/O. NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT: 1010/H, 14TH CROSS,
HEBBAL, MYSURU - 570 016,
PERMANENT ADDRESS AT
RAGIBOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 316.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH C. M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY V. V. PURAM POLICE STATION,
MYSURU - 570 002,
REPRESENTED BY: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
2. MOHAN KUMAR S/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT: NO. 34, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
1ST BLOCK, BANASHANKRI 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 050.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1.
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT MYSURU IN
SPL.C.NO.524/2023 DATED 29.05.2024 FOR THE OFFENCE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11158
CRL.A No. 1484 of 2024
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201 OF IPC AND
SEC.3(2)(V) OF SC AND ST (POA) AMENDED ACT 2015 IN
CR.NO.15/2023 OF V.V.PURAM POLICE STATION, MYSURU AND
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AS THE HON'BLE COURTS DEEMS FIT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERNECING AT DHARWAD BENCH, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the accused No.1 praying to
set aside the order dated 29.05.2024 passed in Special
Case No.524/2023 by the learned VI Additional District
and Special Judge, Mysuru, whereunder the bail
application of the appellant/accused No.1 in respect of
Crime No.15/2023 of V.V. Puram Police Station registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as 'the IPC', for short) and Section 3(2)(v) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC & ST
Act', for short) came to be rejected.
NC: 2025:KHC:11158
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1/State. In spite of service of notice, Respondent No.2
remained absent and unrepresented.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, the
appellant- accused No.1 had intimacy with Sowmya and
he had promised her that he will marry her and had
physical contact with her. The appellant-accused No.1
came to know that Sowmya belongs to Scheduled Caste.
Sowmya started insisting the appellant-accused No.1 to
marry her and the family members of the appellant-
accused No.1 insisted him to marry the daughter of his
sister and therefore, in order to finish Sowmya, the
appellant-accused No.1, on 15.04.2023 in between
11:30am and 12:30 Noon, assaulted the deceased with
the spanner on her head and killed her. After the said
incident, accused No.2 helped the appellant-accused No.1
by bolting, him, in a room and also bolting the house from
outside and assisted him to escape from the clutches of
NC: 2025:KHC:11158
law. Charge-sheet came to be filed against accused No.1
for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and for
the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act and as
against accused No.2 for the offence under Section 201 of
IPC.
4. The appellant/accused No.1 had earlier filed
Criminal Appeal No.1868/2023 challenging the rejection of
his bail petition and the same came to be dismissed by
judgment dated 12.02.2024 before this Court. Thereafter,
the appellant/accused No.1 filed bail application before the
trial Court and the same came to be rejected by the
impugned order. The said order has been challenged by
accused No.1 in this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1
would contend that, there was no motive for the
appellant/accused No.1 to commit murder of Sowmya.
The statement of Yogesh indicates that the deceased and
accused No.1 went to Siddaganga Mutt on 13.04.2023 and
there was Lingadharana to Sowmya on 14.04.2023 i.e., a
NC: 2025:KHC:11158
day prior to the date of incident. The said aspect itself
indicates that, there was no motive, as there was
Lingadharana to the deceased. He further submits that,
the clothes of the appellant, ceased, are found to be
washed and there is no evidence indicating that the blood
stains on the clothes of the appellant are the blood stains
of the blood of the deceased. He further submits that the
appellant is in judicial custody since 19.04.2023. He
further submits that the mother of the appellant is unwell,
bedridden and she is suffering from severe diabetes and
his father is old aged and not having good health. Without
considering these aspects, the learned trial Judge rejected
the bail application of the appellant/accused No.1. With
this he prayed for allowing the appeal and grant of bail to
the appellant/accused No.1.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1-State would contend that earlier this
Court considering prima facie motive and chargesheet has
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/ accused No.1
NC: 2025:KHC:11158
challenging the rejection of his bail application. There are
no new grounds made out for considering this successive
application. CW.3 to CW.6 are the witnesses who have
seen the appellant/accused No.1 with the deceased on the
date of incident. The statement of CW.42-Yogesh does not
indicate that the appellant/accused No.1 has married the
deceased. The Doctor who conducted the Postmortem has
opined that death is due to 'head injury sustained' as
noted in the Postmortem Report. Considering all these
aspects, the trial Court has rightly rejected the bail
application of the appellant. With this, he prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court
has perused the impugned order and the other materials
placed on record.
8. This appeal is filed by the appellant/ accused
No.1 challenging the rejection of successive bail
application by the trial Court. Earlier, the appellant/
accused No.1 has filed an appeal before this Court
NC: 2025:KHC:11158
challenging the rejection of his bail application and the
same came to be dismissed. Wherein this Court has
observed as under;
"7. The deceased was a divorcee and this
appellant No.1 - accused No.1 had an intimacy
with her, which led to physical contact with her.
Appellant No.1 - accused No.1 when insisted by
the deceased to marry her, found that she
belongs to Scheduled Caste and the family
members of appellant No.1 - accused No.1
insisted him to marry daughter of his sister,
therefore, there is a motive for appellant No.1 -
accused No.1 to commit murder of the deceased
Sowmya. There is recovery of banyan, shirt and
spanner under the mahazar, at the instance of
appellant No.1 - accused No.1. The said
spanner, banyan and shirt are found to be of
blood stained in the F.S.L report. The voluntary
statement of appellant No.1 - accused No.1
corroborates all these aspects. On perusal of the
entire charge sheet material, there is a prima
facie case against appellant No.1 - accused
No.1. Considering the said aspect, the learned
District and Special Judge has rightly rejected his
bail application."
NC: 2025:KHC:11158
9. As observed above, this Court considering the
prima facie case has dismissed his appeal challenging the
rejection of his bail application. Merely because, there was
a Lingadharana of the deceased on 14.04.2023, one day
prior to the date of the incident, at this stage, it cannot be
said that there was no motive of the appellant to commit
the murder of the deceased. As per the voluntary
statement of appellant/ accused No.1, the family members
of the appellant/ accused No.1 were insisted to marry the
daughter of his sister. Therefore, there was a motive for
the appellant/ accused No.1 to commit the murder of the
deceased Sowmya. Merely because, the mother of the
appellant/ accused No.1 is unwell and his father is old
aged, not having good health and the appellant has to
take care of him is not a ground for grant of bail, since the
offence alleged against the appellant/ accused No.1 is
punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
NC: 2025:KHC:11158
10. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court
has rightly rejected his bail application by the impugned
order. There are no grounds made out for allowing of the
appeal.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
Kmv upto para 5
PJ from para 6 till end
CT-ASC
