Karnataka High Court
Nikhil @ Pavan Jakie vs State Of Karnataka By on 19 March, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11614
CRL.A No. 375 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. 375 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. NIKHIL @ PAVAN JAKIE
S/O. LATE SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AT FLIPCART COMPANY
RESIDING AT AMBEDKAR COLONY
MALUR TOWN, MALUR
KOLAR-563 130
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed BY MALUR POLICE STATION
by DEVIKA M
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDINGS
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SRI. K. KIRAN KUMAR @ SARATHY
S/O.KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDING AT TALAKUNTE VILLAGE
LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR - 563 130.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11614
CRL.A No. 375 of 2025
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
23.11.2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR IN CRL.MISC.NO.635/2021
REJECTING THE BAIL PETITION OF THE APPELLANT AND
FURTHER BE PLEASED TO GRANT THE BAIL TO THE
APPELLANT, IN SPL.S.C.NO.10/2021, FOR OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 114
R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2), (5) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
1989, PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT KOLAR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
also the learned counsel for the State.
2. This appeal is successive appeal for bail filed by
the accused No.2 and earlier this Court rejected the
appeal for bail of appellant in Crl.A.No.373/2022 vide
order dated 22.01.2024. Now, the counsel would contend
that this Court earlier while rejecting the appeal for bail
comes to the conclusion that the said incident has been
witnessed by CW1 to CW3. The CW1 was along with the
NC: 2025:KHC:11614
victim and CW2 and CW3 were also coming on another
bike. The CW10 who is the sugarcane juice vendor has
also stated regarding the incident even though he has not
identified the persons who assaulted the deceased.
Hence, comes to the conclusion that learned Sessions
Judge has rightly rejected the bail petition.
3. Now, the counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that the very complainant who
was along with the deceased examined as PW1 and he
turned hostile and other eye witnesses who have been
examined as PW2 and PW3 have also turned hostile. The
CW10 who is PW5 also turned hostile.
4. The counsel for respondent No.2 also appear for
PW1 who is the de-facto complainant. The counsel
appearing for the State would contend that in the charge
sheet, specific overt act allegation is made against this
petitioner that he inflicted injury with the long and the
same was snatched by the accused No.7 and there is a
specific overt act.
NC: 2025:KHC:11614
5. The counsel appearing for the appellant brought
to notice of this Court that already granted bail in favour
of accused No.7 and specific overt act allegation is made
against the accused No.7 who has been enlarged on bail.
This Court having noticed the conflicting statement of
witnesses who happens to be the eye witnesses, granted
the bail. Hence, on the ground of parity the appellant is
entitled for the bail.
6. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also
the counsel appearing for the State and also looking into
charge sheet averments made in the column No.17
specific overt act allegation is made against this petitioner
as well as accused No.7. The accused No.7 snatched the
long from this appellant and he inflicted more injuries
when he already been granted bail and this petitioner also
entitled for bail on the ground of parity as well as the eye
witnesses who have been made the statement before the
Police have also been examined as PW1 to PW3 and they
have turned hostile. Apart from that this Court while
NC: 2025:KHC:11614
rejecting the bail, made an observation with regard to the
witnessing of incident by CW10. The CW10 also examined
before the Trial Court, he also did not support the case of
prosecution and having considered all these material on
record and also parity is also applicable to the present
appellant. Hence, the appellant is entitled for bail.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the
appellant/accused No.2 shall be released on bail in
connection with Crime No.75/2021 of Malur Police
Station, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341,
302, 114 R/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections
3(2)(5) of SC/ST, POA Act 1989 subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The appellant shall execute his personal
bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees
NC: 2025:KHC:11614
two lakhs only) with two sureties for the
like-sum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The appellant shall not indulge in
tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The appellant shall appear before the
jurisdictional Court on all the future
hearing dates, unless exempted by the
Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) 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
RHS
