Karnataka High Court
Sri Pruthviraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11378
CRL.A No. 32 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.32 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI PRUTHVIRAJ
S/O LATE RAJESH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE,
BYRANAHALLI POST,
NARASAPURA HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK-563101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M N ABHILASH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed
SRI NANJUNDA GOWDA M R, ADVOCATE)
by DEVIKA M AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VEMAGAL POLICE STATION,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI. PRAVEEN.R
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11378
CRL.A No. 32 of 2025
NARASAPURA HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563133
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP A/W
SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI M C VENKATARANGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
21.09.2024 PASSED IN SPL S.C.NO.12/2024 ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
KOLAR AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND RELEASE THE
APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL (IN CR.NO.98/2024 OF
VEMAGAL POLICE STATION) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF
IPC AND SEJC.3(1)(r) AND (s) AND 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST POA
ACT AND ETC.
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 appearing for the
respective parties.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant would
vehemently contend that this Court already granted the
bail in favour of accused No.11 in Crl.P.No.2239/2024 vide
NC: 2025:KHC:11378
order dated 16.01.2025 and similar allegation is made
against accused No.11 as that of this appellant and hence,
this appellant is also entitled for bail on the ground of
parity. The counsel also would vehemently contend that
witnesses who have given the statements are relatives
i.e., CW5, 6 and 14 and none of the witnesses who have
witnessed the incident were subjected to recording of
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and hence, the
theory of the prosecution is that this appellant is also
indulged in committing the offence of murder is doubtful
and the statement of witnesses also contrary to each
other. Hence, the appellant is entitled for bail.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1/State would vehemently contend that the
specific allegation is against this appellant that he inflicted
the injury with the iron rod on the legs of the deceased
and the counsel brought to notice of this Court PM report
wherein the injuries found on both the left and right legs
of the deceased i.e., injury Nos.13, 17, 18 as well as
NC: 2025:KHC:11378
injury Nos.24 to 26 are corresponds with the act of this
appellant and hence, overt act allegation corresponds with
the medical evidence and hence, it is not a case to enlarge
the appellant on bail.
4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 also filed statement of objections contending that
specific overt act allegation is made by the eye-witnesses
i.e., CW8 to 12 that this appellant assaulted with iron rod
on the legs of the deceased and even Investigating Officer
seized the blood stained iron rod by this appellant and
hence, there is a material against this appellant.
5. In reply to the arguments, the learned counsel
for the appellant would vehemently contend that though
iron rod was seized, the same was not stained with blood.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also on perusal of the material
on record, no doubt, this Court granted the bail in favour
of accused No.11 in Crl.A.No.2239/2024 and this Court
NC: 2025:KHC:11378
while granting bail, taken note of the fact that accused
Nos.14 and 16 have also granted bail by the co-ordinate
Bench and accused No.11 also stands in the same footing.
But in the case on hand, on perusal of material on record,
it discloses that the specific allegation is made against this
appellant stating that he inflicted the injury with iron rod
on the legs of the deceased and hence, the observation
made by co-ordinate Bench of this Court granting the bail
in favour of accused No.11 cannot be relied upon by this
Court and the same is against the material on record and
the same also not binds this Court when specific overt act
allegation is made against this appellant. The Court has to
look into the material on record wherein it discloses that
this appellant inflicted injury with the iron rod on the legs
of the deceased and the injuries correspond with the PM
report i.e., injury Nos.13, 17, 18 as well as 24 to 26 and
PM report is also discloses that there were 32 injuries and
injury Nos.9, 13, 17, 18, 20 and 21 have clear cut mark
with one sharp end and one with blend end. Thus, this is
nothing but a barbaric act taking a life of the person.
NC: 2025:KHC:11378
When such material is available on record, it is not a case
for exercising the discretion in favour of the appellant as
contended by the counsel for the appellant.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
