Karnataka High Court
Ranganatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2005
CRL.A No. 200083 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200083 OF 2025 (U/S 14 (A)(2))
BETWEEN:
1. RANGANATHA S/O TIMMAPPA
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
2. SAGAR @ VIDYASAGAR S/O RANGAPPA,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
BOTH ARE R/AT SIRWAR TOWN,
TQ: SIRWAR, DIST: RAICHUR - 584129.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B. C. JAKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RENUKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH THROUGH SIRWAR POLICE STATION,
COURT OF TQ: SIRWAR, DIST: RAICHUR - 584129,
KARNATAKA NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH - 585107.
2. MALLAPPA S/O SHIVAGYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: LABOURER, R/AT VIDYANAGAR SIRWAR,
TQ: SIRWAR, DIST: RAICHUR - 584129.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2005
CRL.A No. 200083 of 2025
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
24.02.2025 IN CRL.MISC. NO.89/2025, PASSED BY SPECIAL
COURT FOR ATROCITY OFFENCES AND I ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE RAICHUR AND RELEASE THE APPELLANTS ON REGULAR
BAIL IN CRIME NO.14/2025, REGISTERED BY SIRWAR POLICE
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 189(2),
191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 351(2) R/W
SECTION 190 OF BNS, 2023 AND UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(R),
3(1)(S), 3(2)(VA) OF THE SC AND ST (PA) ACT AGAINST
THESE APPELLANTS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT RAICHUR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)
This appeal has been filed by the appellants seeking
for regular bail in Crime No.14/2025 for the offences
stated supra.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2005
2. The father of the injured Sri Mallappa lodged a
complaint stating that on 23.01.2025 around 9-30 p.m.
when he was at home, he had received an information
over phone through his son-in-law that his son had been
assaulted by the appellants and others and he had been
admitted to hospital. On receiving the said information, he
went to the hospital and saw his son, he was under
treatment and he was not talking with anybody.
Thereafter, he lodged a complaint before the
respondent/police.
3. Heard learned counsel Sri B.C. Jaka, for the
appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader
Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadav for the respondent
No.1/State.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for
the appellants that the complainant is the hearsay witness
and he was not aware about the incident. There is a delay
in lodging the complaint. As per the averments of the
complaint, the incident had taken place on 23.01.2025,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2005
however, a complaint came to be registered on
24.01.2025. Therefore, the appellants may be enlarged on
bail by imposing suitable conditions.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader vehemently submitted that the incident had taken
place on 23.01.2025 and the victim was admitted to the
hospital. Immediately after receiving the information, the
head constable No.241 of respondent/police received a
written complaint and same has been reduced into FIR.
Therefore, there is no delay in lodging the complaint and
moreover it was a medico legal case. The son-in-law of the
complainant was the eyewitness to the incident.
Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant bail.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and also perused the averments of the
complaint, it appears that appellant No.1/Ranganatha and
others stated to have assaulted the injured by scolding the
name of the caste of the injured. The appellant No.2
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2005
stated to have assaulted the injured with the knife and
caused the injuries.
7. On going through the contents of the complaint,
I am of the opinion that the appellant No.1 may be
ordered to be released on bail, however, the appellant
No.2 is concerned, there are allegations against him which
are very serious in nature. Therefore, his application for
bail requires to be rejected.
8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned order dated 24.02.2025, in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.89/2025, passed by
the Special Court for Atrocity offences and I
Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur is set aside
insofar as the appellant No.1 is concerned.
(iii) The Appellant No.1 is enlarged on bail in Crime
No.14/2025, registered by the Sirwar Police
Station, for the offences punishable under
Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1),
109, 352, 351(2) R/w Section 190 of BNS, 2023
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2005
and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the
SC and ST (PA) Act, by executing personal bond
for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for
the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court
on the following conditions:
a. The appellant No.1 shall not threaten or
tamper the prosecution witnesses.
b. The appellant No.1 shall appear before the
Trial Court on all hearing dates without
fail.
c. The appellant No.1 shall co-operate for
investigation as and when required.
d. The appellant No.1 shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the Trial Court till disposal of
the case.
(iv) The appeal filed by the appellant No.2 is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
RSP
CT: PK
