Karnataka High Court
Immadi Mahadevaswamy @ Devanna Buiddi, ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46094
CRL.A No. 2403 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2403 OF 2024
(U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
IMMADI MAHADEVASWAMY @ DEVANNA BUIDDI,
@ DEVANNA SWAMY S/O. VEERABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/O. SALURU MATA, MAL MAHADESHWARA HILL,
KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT,
PIN-571440.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANUMANTARAYA C.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN
AYUB DESHNUR BY: RAMAPURA P.S.,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KOLLAGALA TALUK,
KARNATAKA
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.
(REP: BY THE S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT PREMISES,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SMT. RAJAMMA
W/O. SIDDARAJU,
MAJOR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46094
CRL.A No. 2403 of 2024
HC-KAR
R/O. DORESWAMY MEDU VILLAGE,
KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA
DISTRICT, PIN-571440.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAGADESH B.N., ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SMT. NIDHI M.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 20.11.2024 PASSED IN SPL. CASE NO.72/2019 BY THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA
DISTRICT AT CHAMARAJANAGARA AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO
ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.72/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, CHAMARAJANAGARA
DISTRICT, CHARGED FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
118, 120-B, 326, 307, 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(V)
(VA) OF THE SC/ST (PA) ACT, 1989, ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.266/2018 OF RAMAPURA POLICE STATION, KOLLEGALA
TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 05.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46094
CRL.A No. 2403 of 2024
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)
This appeal is filed by the appellant who is arrayed as
accused No.1 seeking for regular bail in Crime No.266/2018
pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge for Atrocity case, Chamarajanagar.
Factual matrix of the case:
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.12.2019,
a complaint came to be registered before the Ramapura Police
Station. The said Police registered a case in Crime No.266/2018
for the offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section
34 of I.P.C against six named and many unnamed persons in
the F.I.R. The said written complaint would indicate that the
respondent No.2 is a resident of Doreswamymedu village and
he belongs to Scheduled Caste community. On 14.12.2018, she
had been to Kicchugutti Maramma temple situated at Suluvadi
to go to Om Shakthi Temple at Tamil Nadu. All of them had
darshana of the diety and were singing bhajanas in the temple
premises. Many unknown persons were also present in vicinity
of the temple. On the same date, a stone laying ceremony for
NC: 2025:KHC:46094
HC-KAR
consideration of Maha Dwara was also scheduled. After the
function there was programme to distribute the prasada. At
about 10.30 P.M, Manager of the temple Sri. Chinnappi and
accused No.1 in the F.I.R and others requested the devotees to
have prasada. All the devotees went and took the rice bath in
the paper plates and consumed it.
3. It is further stated that there were about 75-100
devotees in the temple. Immediately, after consuming the
prasada some devotees started vomiting and felt giddiness.
Immediately, all of them were shifted to various hospitals. As
per the averments of the charge-sheet, 17 persons died due to
complications after eating the prasada, 119 persons suffered
from various injuries. In addition to that 27 Crows and 01 Mina
bird died in the said incident.
4. It is further stated that the appellant had
approached the Trial Court for bail, it was rejected on
02.03.2019 on the ground that investigation was still pending.
The appellants approached this Court by filing the Criminal
Petition seeking for bail. However, it was rejected on merits on
25.09.2019. Subsequently, he preferred a S.L.P before the
NC: 2025:KHC:46094
HC-KAR
Apex Court for the same relief. However, it was rejected on
02.12.2019 holding that there was no reason to interfere with
the impugned order passed by the High Court. Again, the
appellant herein had approached the Trial Court on the health
grounds and also delay in concluding the trial. However, the
Trial Court violates the order dated 25.03.2023 and rejected
the bail. Being aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an
appeal before this Court. This Court vide its order dated
18.07.2024 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Second
successive bail application was also rejected on 19.11.2024
before the Trial Court, against the said order this appeal is filed
by the accused No.1/appellant.
5. Heard Sri.Hanumantaraya C.H., learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri. Jagadeesh B.N., learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Smt. Nidhi M. Patil,
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the
appellant that though, successive bail applications were filed for
granting of bail to the appellant, all the applications have been
rejected on different context. Even, twice it was rejected on the
NC: 2025:KHC:46094
HC-KAR
health grounds also. The present appeal is filed under changed
circumstances that, the Trial Court is not concluding the trial
even after lapse of six years. Moreover, the appellant is
suffering from health issues and he needs medical assistance
for his survival.
7. It is further submitted that the health of the
appellant is being deteriorated day by day. There are 332
witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet, so far as, even half
of the witnesses have not been examined. There is no
possibility to conclude the trial at the earliest. The trial will not
be concluded even after lapse of four to five years, under such
circumstances if the appellant is not provided better treatment
there is all possibilities of losing his life. Therefore, in the
interest of his health condition bail may be granted by imposing
suitable conditions, he will abide the said conditions. Making
such submissions the learned counsel for the appellant prays to
allow the application.
8. Per Contra, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Additional
State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1, vehemently,
submitted that the appellant herein had filed successive bail
NC: 2025:KHC:46094
HC-KAR
applications for regular bail, all the appeals have been rejected.
Even the grounds urged in the present appeal had also been
urged in the previous bail applications. The appellant was
unsuccessful not only on the ground of delay in concluding the
trial, but also, on the health grounds too. It is further submitted
that, if the suitable direction is given by this Court, the medical
facilities would be provided at the cost of the appellant.
Therefore, it is not appropriate to consider the said application
on the health ground. Making such submissions, the learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor prays to dismiss the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the
respective parties and also perused the averments of the
charge-sheet and also considering the latest position of the trial
which is being held in the Trial Court, it is necessary to
highlight the present position of the case.
10. It is noticed that out of 332 witnesses, some of the
witnesses have been examined, remaining half of the witnesses
are to be examined. The appellant is in judicial custody almost
from 05 years. Having regard to the successive bail application
filed by the appellant on the health ground, the direction has
NC: 2025:KHC:46094
HC-KAR
given to the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor to
produce the present health status of the appellant.
11. On perusal of the said medical report, prima-facie it
appears that the appellant needs proper medication for his
survival. Having considered the principle of 'bail is a rule and
jail is exception', I am of the considered opinion that it is
appropriate to grant bail for the limited period for the purpose
of the treatment. Without adverting to the merits of the case,
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed in-part.
ii. The appellant/accused is ordered to be enlarged on
bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.5.00 lakhs with two sureties for the like sum of
the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
iii. The bail is granted for a limited period i.e., only
one year. It will be effected from the date of
releasing him on bail.
iv. The appellant shall surrender before the Trial Court
after completion of one year.
NC: 2025:KHC:46094
HC-KAR
v. The appellant shall not threaten the prosecution
witnesses.
vi. The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on
all hearing dates, without fail.
vii. The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of
Bangalore, Mysore and Chamarajanagar for his
necessary treatment, till disposal of the case.
In the event, if, the appellant violates any of the
conditions stated supra, the liberty is reserved to the
prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation
of bail.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
NM
