Karnataka High Court
Siddaraju V vs The State Of Karnataka By on 13 November, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No. 2054 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2054 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SIDDARAJU V
S/O. VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
C/O. NAGARAJU,
ANGADI BEEDHI,
NEXT TO KARAGA TEMPLE,
VEMAGAL, KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
PIN 563101
NATIVE ADDRESS
KANEGOWDANAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
PIN 563101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARALE SANTHOSH SUBHASHCHANDRA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI
POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
CRL.A No. 2054 of 2025
2. SRI. OMKARPPA,
S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT. NO. 150,
SANJEEVENI LAYOUT,
LAKSHMIPURA,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU.
PIN 562 162.
3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT KASABA HOBLI,
OBANAYAKANAHALLI,
NELAMANGALA - 562123
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP.,
SMT. MANJULA D., ADV. FOR R3.)
[CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DTD:24.10.2025]
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC AND
ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE II ADDL.DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN
CRL.MISC.NO.1577/2025 DATED 18.09.2025 AND ENLARGE
THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPL.C NO.886/2022
(CR.NO.423/2022) OF MADANAYAKANAHALLI POILCE FOR THE
ALLEGED O/P/U/S 302,201 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.DIST. AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 06.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-3-
CRL.A No. 2054 of 2025
CAV JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the
order dated 18th September 2025 passed in Criminal Misc.
No.1577 of 2025 by the II Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru (Rural) District, Bengaluru "for short "the trial
Court").
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on the
basis of complaint filed by one Omkarappa, Madanayakanahalli
Police, registered Crime No.423 of 2022 against unknown
persons for commission offence punishable under section 302
and 201 of Indian Penal Code and submitted FIR to the court.
After completion of investigation, investigating officer
submitted charge-sheet against accused 1 to 5 for commission
of offence under Sections 302 and 201 read with section 149 of
Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The bail
application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure for grant regular bail came to be rejected by
the trial Court vide order dated 18th September 2025. Being
aggrieved by the rejection of bail, the appellant has preferred
this appeal.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that name of the appellant does not find place in the
First Information Report or in the complaint. The appellant is
totally a stranger to the alleged crime. He was not aware
about the same. He has neither directly or indirectly involved
in the above case. Even though the appellant is in no way
concerned to the crime, the respondent Police have falsely
implicated the name of the charge-sheet at the later stage of
investigation instead of arresting the accused who are held
responsible for the murder of the deceased. It is further
submitted that PW1-Omkarappa is not an eye witness and
PW2-Govinda Raju who is eyewitness, has not supported the
case of prosecution. Even in his cross-examination, after
treating him as hostile witness by the prosecution,
he has categorically denied the statement recorded by the
investigating officer under section 161 of Code of Criminal
Procedure which is marked as Exhibit P10.
4. Learned Counsel would further submit that PW3-
Thirthappa Basappa has not supported the case of prosecution.
PW6 also has not supported the Case of prosecution. Further,
he submits that this court has granted bail to Manjunath
accused No.3 in Criminal Misc. No.1251 of 2025 dated 18th
September 2025. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow
the appeal.
5. As against this, Sri R. Rangaswamy, learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for the official
respondent-State, would submit that the alleged eye-witness
has not supported the case of prosecution, The last seen
witness PW5-Bhagyamma, has supported the case of
prosecution. He would further submit that the present accused
has filed appeal before this court in Criminal Appeal No.666 of
2023, and the same came to be rejected by this court on 30th
June 2023. The CCTV footage has been recovered by the police
and the same reveals that the deceased went along with
accused. On all these grounds, it is sought for rejection of
appeal.
6. Respondent No.3 has filed statement of objections.
7. Having heard on both sides and perusal of
materials, the following point arise for my consideration:
"Whether the appellant/accused has made out a ground
to interfere with the order impugned passed by the trial Court?
8. I have examined the materials placed before the
court. A perusal of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.666 of 2023 decided on 30th
June, 2023 reveals that the present applicant had filed Criminal
Appeal against the order passed by the trial Court in Crime
No.423 of 2022. The appeal came to be dismissed by this
Court by Order dated 30th June, 2023. At paragraph 10 of the
order, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, has observed thus:
"10. Back ground of the crime also reveals that the
deceased said to have told the accused No.1 that he had
intimacy with the wife of accused No.1. Thereafter, he
has married her. On the background, accused person
hatched the conspiracy and took the deceased into the
lonely place along with accused persons and committed
murder. Of course the case is based upon the
circumstantial evidence. However, one Sri.Govindarju
i.e., C.W.3 has stated that on the same day, he along
with one driver went in a car along with one of the
accused person has dropped the deceased to the lonely
place and committed murder and came back he informed
that they taught a lesson to him. CCTV footage said to
have recovered by the police reveals that the deceased
went with accused persons."
9. Smt. D Manjula, the learned Counsel appearing for
the complainant-respondent No.3, has produced the order
sheet in Special Case No.886 of 2022 which reveals that the
trial Court had granted interim bail to this accused. Thereafter,
the trial court has rejected the same on the ground that
accused No.2 violated the conditions of interim bail and he has
not underwent surgery as submitted by him in the application
seeking interim bail. The appellant has not disclosed as to the
dismissal of Criminal Appeal No.666 of 2023 by this Court. The
court has granted bail to Manjunath accused No.3. The same
cannot be a ground to grant bail to this accused as the fact and
circumstance of the case pertaining to accused Manjunath are
not similar to the facts of this accused. The prosecution has
not examined all the witnesses. Considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, at this stage, it is not just on proper
to release accused on bail. Accordingly, I answer Point that
arose for consideration in the negative.
10. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
