Karnataka High Court
Vittal S/O Jagadish Barker vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5028
CRL.A No. 100083 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100083 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
VITTAL S/O. JAGADISH BARKER,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/AT: BADAMI, TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT - 586 118.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR BADAMI POLICE STATION, BADAMI,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Dharwad
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. SHEKAPPA
S/O. MALLAPPA DODDAMANI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
R/AT: BADAMI RAILWAY SATATION,
TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 201.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5028
CRL.A No. 100083 of 2025
3. RAMACHANDARA
S/O. HANAMANT MUTTAGAR,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
R/AT: BADAMI RAILWAY SATATION,
TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 201.
4. HANAMANT
S/O. RAMANNA TALIKOTI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
R/AT: BADAMI RAILWAY SATATION,
TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 TO R4 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND
ST POA ACT 2015, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2024 AS ATTACHED
IN BADAMI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.180/2024 PENDING ON
THE FILE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT BAGALKOT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 126(2), 352, 351(2)
READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BNS, 2023 AND SECTIONS
3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) OF S.C ST (P.O.A) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015
AND TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 ON
ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN EVENT OF THE ARREST, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIEVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5028
CRL.A No. 100083 of 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by accused No.4 praying to set
aside the order dated 30.12.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.
No.620/2024 by the II Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Bagalkote, whereunder the anticipatory bail
application filed by the appellant/ accused No.4 in respect
of Badami Police Station in Crime No.180/2004 registered
for offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2),
118(1), 126(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 352
of BNS and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, came to be rejected.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/
accused No.4 and the learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1/ State. In spite of service of
notice, respondent Nos.2 to 4 remained absent and un-
represented.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5028
3. The case of the prosecution is that on
06.10.2024 at about 1:10 PM, when the complainant was
at the vegetable market, accused No.1 approached in his
car and horned, asking the complainant to move aside.
The complainant responded that he was already standing
by the side of the road, enraged by this, accused No.1
abused the complainant in filthy language, pushed him to
the ground and assaulted him and threatened to kill him.
Later on, on the same day at 7:30 PM, when the
complainant and other persons went to Badami
Government Hospital for treatment, accused No.1 with an
intention to kill the complainant, threw a Barry gate at the
complainant, caused the injuries to his wrist and head.
Accused Nos.2 and 3 are alleged to have restrained the
complainant and accused Nos.1 and 2 made him fall on
the ground and pressed his neck with this they attempted
to strangulate him. The accused Nos.2 and 4 supporting
the other accused persons abused CW.1 in filthy words by
touching his caste and accused No.4 assaulted CW.5 with
a stone and caused simple injury.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5028
4. The appellant/ accused No.4 apprehending his
arrest has filed the petition before the Special Court and
the same came to be rejected by an impugned order.
5. The learned counsel for appellant would
contend that the allegation of abuse of CW.1 in filthy
words by touching his caste is omnibus allegation against
this appellant/ accused No.4. Therefore, at this stage, it
cannot be said that this appellant/ accused No.4 abused
the complainant by touching his caste. He submits that
CWs.1, 4 and 5 have sustained simple injuries. He
contends that accused Nos.1 to 3 have been granted bail
by this Court. He submits that as the chargesheet is filed,
appellant/ accused No.4 is not required for custodial
interrogation. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and
grant anticipatory bail to the appellant/ accused No.4.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1/ State would contend that
CW.1 belongs to the Schedule Caste. There is an allegation
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5028
against this appellant/ accused No.4 of abusing CW.1 by
taking his caste name in filthy words. There is a bar under
Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act for grant of anticipatory
bail. Considering the said aspects, the learned Special
Judge has rightly passed the impugned order. With this he
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court
has perused the FIR, Complaint, charge sheet and
impugned order.
8. On perusal of column No.17 of the chargesheet,
the accusation against this appellant/ accused No.4 and
accused No.2 is that on 06.10.2024, 7:15 PM when the
complainant went to the Government Hospital for
treatment at that time, the appellant/ accused No.4 and
accused No.2 restrained him and abused him by taking his
caste name in filthy words and thereafter, the appellant/
accused No.4 assaulted the CW.5 with a stone. The said
abuse of complainant by this appellant/ accused No.4 and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5028
accused No.2 is an omnibus allegation. At this stage, it
cannot be said that both the appellant/ accused No.4 and
accused No.2 have abused the complainant with the same
words. Therefore, there is no prima facie case against this
appellant/ accused No.4 for attracting an offence under
Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act. Therefore, the bar under
Section 18 does not attract. CWs.1, 4 and 5 have
sustained simple injuries. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have already
been granted regular bail. As the chargesheet is filed,
appellant/ accused No.4 is not required for custodial
introduction. Without considering these aspects, the
learned Special Judge has passed an impugned order
which requires interference of this Court.
9. In view of the above, the appellant/ accused
No.4 has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned
order and grant of anticipatory bail. In the result, the
following;
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5028
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 30.12.2024
passed in Crl.Misc. No.620/2024 by the
II Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Bagalkote, is set aside.
iii) The bail petition of the appellant/
accused No.4 stands allowed and he is
ordered to be enlarged on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime
No.180/2024, subject to the following
conditions:
a) The appellant/ accused No.4
shall executive a personal bond for a
sum of ₹1,00,000/- [Rupees One
Lakh] with one surety for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the
Special Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5028
b) The appellant/ accused No.4
shall voluntarily appear before the
Special Court within fifteen [15] days
of this order.
c) The appellant/ accused No.4
shall not tamper the prosecution
witnesses.
d) The appellant/ accused No.4
shall appear before the Special Court
on all dates of hearing unless
exempted and corporate for the
speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
PJ/CT-ASC
