Sri. Rathnappa @ Rathna @ Buddaga vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 10211 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Rathnappa @ Rathna @ Buddaga vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 November, 2025

                                                -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:46837
                                                      CRL.A No. 2013 of 2025


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2013 OF 2025 (A)
                   BETWEEN:

                         SRI. RATHNAPPA @ RATHNA @ BUDDAGA
                         @BUDDAGADU,
                         S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
                         R/O PAPENAHALLI VILLAGE,
                         KYASAMBALLI HOBLI,
                         K.G.F.TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 113,
                         PRESENTLY R/AT YARRANAGULAVARIPALLI VILLAGE
                         SOMALA MANDALAM INRIGIPANTA POST,
                         PUNAGANURU TALUK, CHITTOR DISTRICT
                         ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 257.
                                                                ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SMT.SHILPA RANI., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B                  1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High           BY BETHMANGALA POLICE STATION,
Court of
Karnataka                MULABAGILU,
                         REPRESENTED BY THE
                         STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                         OFFICE OF ADVOCATE GENERAL,
                         HIGH COURT BULLDINGS,
                         BANGALORE - 560 001.

                   2.    SRI.SOMASHEKARA,
                         S/O KRISHNNAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                            -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:46837
                                   CRL.A No. 2013 of 2025


HC-KAR




   R/O PAPENAHALLI VILLAGE,
   KYASAMBALLI HOBLI,
   KGF-563 102, KOLAR DISTRICT.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RANGASWAMY.R., HCGP FOR R1;
 R2 - Served & unrepresented)


     THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 378(4) CR.P.C (U/S 419(4) BNSS)
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE HIM ON
BAIL IN SPL.SC.IPC.SC/ST.NO.19/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 302, 201 120(b) OF IPC, U/S 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST ACT,
1989, REGISTERED BY BETHAMANGALA P.S., MULABAGILU,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT KOLAR.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA


                   ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the

order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions

Judge at Kolar in Spl.S.C.IPC.SC/ST.No.19/2021 dated

24.04.2025.

NC: 2025:KHC:46837

HC-KAR

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that on

the basis of the complaint filed by Somakshekhar,

Bethamangala Police have registered a case in Cr.No.47 of

2021 against the unknown persons for the commission of

the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. After

investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the

charge-sheet against the accused for the commission of

offence under Section 302, 201, 120(b) r/w Section

3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The appellant/accused

has filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.,

which came to be rejected on 24.04.2025. Being

aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this

appeal.

3. Smt.Shilpa Rani, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant would submit that the appellant is

innocent of the alleged offences. He has not committed

any offence as alleged against him. There was no enmity

or hostility between the appellant and the deceased. There

are no disputes between the accused and the deceased in

NC: 2025:KHC:46837

HC-KAR

respect of any properties. There was no motive for the

appellant to commit such a heinous crime and the alleged

offence attributed to the appellant is fictitious and

fabricated.

The entire case of the prosecution that the accused

has committed the offence as alleged, has no basis. The

appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The

appellant has not committed or indulged in any offences as

alleged in the complaint. On bare reading of the complaint,

there is no specific mention of the overt-acts, which can

be attributed to the appellant.

The appellant is a physically handicap does not have

left shoulder. There is no chance of the appellant

committing the murder of the deceased as alleged by the

prosecution. The appellant is aged 60 years. There is a

land dispute between the appellant/accused and PW-1. In

order to grab the land of the appellant, PW-1 has fixed the

appellant in this case so that PW-1 can enjoy the entire

property by himself. The appellant is suffering from old

NC: 2025:KHC:46837

HC-KAR

age ailments. He requires constant treatment for his

ailments. Apart from the fact that he is a handicapped

person, that there are no substantial material evidence or

any eye-witness to say that the appellant has committed

the alleged offence. On all these grounds, learned counsel

for the appellant sought to allow this appeal.

4. Sri.Rangaswamy.R., learned HCGP would

submit that on behalf of appellant, two bail applications

were filed before the Trial Court, prior to the impugned

order, and same were rejected. The prosecution has

challenged the third bail application filed by the appellant.

He reiterated the averments made in statement of

objections. It is submitted by the learned HCGP that there

are twelve criminal cases registered against him, which

are hereunder:

1) Bethamangala Police station in Crime No.129/1990 offences punishable under section 457,380 of IPC.

2) Bethamangala Police station in Crime No.12/1993 offence punishable under section 380 of IPC.

NC: 2025:KHC:46837

HC-KAR

3) Bethamangala Police station in Crime No.63/1995 offences punishable under section 457,380 of IPC.

4) Bethamangala Police station in Crime No.81/1999 offences punishable under section 379 of IPC.

5) Bethamangala Police station in Crime No.82/1999 offences punishable under section 380 of IPC.

6) Bethamangala Police station in Crime No.83/1999 offences punishable under section 379 of IPC.

7) Bethamangala Police station in Crime No.37/2004 offences punishable under section 379, 411 of IPC.

8) Bethamangala Police station in Crime No.138/2007 offences punishable under section 380 of IPC.

9) Bethamangala Police station in Crime No.139/2007 offences punishable under section 379 of IPC.

10) Bethamangala Police station in Crime No.140/2007 offences punishable under section 379 of IPC.

5. If the appellant is released on bail, he may

tamper certain prosecution witnesses. On all these

grounds sought for dismissal of the appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC:46837

HC-KAR

6. I have examined the materials placed before

this Court. The Investigation Officer has submitted the

charge-sheet against the accused for the offence of

Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST

Act, 1989. In paragraph No.17 of the charge-sheet it is

stated as under:

"ಈ ೋ ಾ ೋಪಣ ಪತ ದ ಅಂಕಣ- 12 ರ ಕಂಡ ಆ ೋ ಯು ತಮ ಕ ಪ ನ ಮಗ!ೇ ಆದ ೋ."ಾ-1 ರವ ೊಂ$%ೆ ಜ'ೕ(ನ )*ಾರದ +ೈಯ-.ದ ೆ/ೕಷ ಇಟು34ೊಂ5ದು6 7ೇ%ಾದರೂ 8ಾ5 ೋ."ಾ- 1 ರವ9%ೆ :ೊಂದ ೆ 8ಾಡ;ೇ4ೆಂಬ ದುರು ೆ6ೕಶ)ಟು34ೊಂಡು >ಾರ!ಾ?ದರೂ 4ೊ@ೆ 8ಾ5 ಶವವನು? ೋ."ಾ-1 ರವರ ಜ'ೕ(ನ 7ಾ-ದ ೆ ೋ."ಾ-1 ರವ9%ೆ :ೊಂದ ೆ ಆಗುತ. ೆಂದು Aೕಚ!ೆ 8ಾ5 4ೊ@ೆ 8ಾಡಲು *ಾಕುವನು? ಖ9ೕ$E ತನ? ಬF ಇಟು34ೊಂ5ದು6 ತನ%ೆ ಪ9ಚಯ)ದ6 :ಾG ೆ5HಹFJ %ಾ ಮದ ಯKೆLೕಧಮ 4ೋಂ +ೆಂಕಟ"ಾ/' ಎಂ;ಾ4ೆಯನು? 4ೊ@ೆ 8ಾಡ@ೆಂದು (ಧO9E, $!ಾಂಕ 02.05.2021 ರಂದು ಾG 10:00 ಗಂPೆ%ೆ :ಾG ೆ5HಹFJ %ಾ ಮದ ೋ."ಾ-3 ರವರ ಮ!ೆ ಬF 7ೋQ 04 ಮದRದ Sಾ4ೆT ಗಳನು? :ೆ%ೆದು4ೊಂಡ ನಂತರ ಅ ೇ %ಾ ಮದ ಯKೆLೕಧಮ ನ ಮ!ೆ ಬF 7ೋQ ಆ4ೆ%ೆ ಒಂದು ಮದRದ Sಾ4ೆT ಅನು? ಕು5E ಒಂದು ಗಂPೆ 4ಾಲ 8ಾತ!ಾ5 ನಂತರ ಯKೆLೕಧಮನ!ೆ?ೕ 4ೊ@ೆ 8ಾಡುವW ೆಂದು ಸಂಚು 8ಾ5 ತಮ ಜ'ೕ(ನ ಬF ;ಾ ಉFದ ಮದRದ Sಾ4ೆT ಗಳನು? ಅ Zೕ 4ೊಡು:ೆ.ೕ!ೆಂದು 7ೇF ಆ4ೆಯನು? ಮದR ಾG 12:00 ಗಂPೆ +ೇ[ೆ%ೆ SಾSೇನಹFJ %ಾ ಮದ ಸ+ೆO ನಂಬ\ 25 ರ ರುವ ೋ."ಾ-1 ರವರ ಜ'ೕ(ನ ಕೃ^ 7ೊಂಡದ ಬF ಕ ೆದು4ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಅ ಆ4ೆ%ೆ ಮೂರು ಮದRದ Sಾ4ೆT ಗಳನು? ಕು5Eದು6 ಮದR ಾG 02:00 ಗಂPೆ ಸಮಯದ ಯKೆLೕಧಮ ರವರು ಮದRದ ಅಮ ನ ಪ `ೆ ತ ಾಗ

NC: 2025:KHC:46837

HC-KAR

ಾ ಗ ಜ ಾಂಗ ೆ ೇ ದ ಆ ೋ ಯು ತನ ಬ ಇಟು ೊಂ ದ ಾಕು!"ಂದ #ೋ! ಜ ಾಂಗ ೆ ೇ ದ ಯ$ೆ%ೕಧಮ(ನ ಕತ)ನು ೊಯು ರುಂಡ ಮತು) ಮುಂಡವನು -ೇಪ/ 0 ಬಬ/ರ1ಾ2 ೊ3ೆ 4ಾ ಾ50ದ ನಂತರ ಸ7ೕಪದ89ದ :ೋ. ಾ-4 ರವರ ಜ7ೕ"ನ89ದ ;ೕಟ< ರೂ7ನ89ದ ಗ=ಾ ಮತು) ೆ" ೆಯನು >ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಎರಡು ಅ ಗಳ ಗುಂ >ೋ ಯ$ೆ%ೕಧಮ(ನ :ೇಹವನು ಗುಂ ಯ89 CಾD ಅದರ Eೕ3ೆ ಮಣುG ಮುHI ನಂತರ ಅ89Jೕ KLದ ಎರಡು "ೕ8 ಬಣGದ Mಾ90 N ಕವ< ಗಳನು >ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಅದರ89 ಮೃತಳ ರುಂಡ ಮತು) ಆ ೆಯ ಕತ)ನು ಕತ) ಸಲು ಬಳ0ದ ಾಕುವನು ಇಟು ಗಂಟು ಕQ ಅದನು ಮತು) ಗುಂ >ೋಡಲು ಬಳ0ದ ಗ=ಾ , ೆ" ೆಯನು ಾRಾSTಾರ ಾಶಪ ಸುವ ದುರು:ೇಶLಂದ >ಾV ೆ Wಹ X ಾYಮದ Cೊರವಲಯದ89ರುವ ಾಮ ಾಗರ · ೆ ೆ ೆ ೇ ದ ಾಲು1ೆಯ89 K ಾD ನಂತರ ಆ ೋ ಯು L: 03.05.2021 ರಂದು ಮುಂZಾ ೆ :ೋ. ಾ-1 ರವ ೆ [ೕ\ 4ಾ " "]ಮ >ೋಟದ ಕೃ^ Cೊಂಡದ ಬ _ಾ ೋ ಇಬ`ರು ವaD)ಗಳb _ಾರ:ೋ ಶವವನು - ಹೂಳbV)ದು ಅವರು ನನ ನು ೋ ಓ Cೋ2ರು>ಾ) ೆ. ಾನು ಾಯಂ ಾಲ ಬರು>ೆ)ೕ ೆ ಅದರ Eೕ3ೆ ಮುಳbXಕಂಪಗಳನು CಾD " ಎಂದು Cೇ ನಂತರ ಾYಮದ89ರ:ೆ ತ3ೆಮ ೆ0 ೊಂ ದುದು ತ"dೆ5ಂದ ಾKೕ>ಾ2ರುತ):ೆ.

ಆದ ಂದ ಆ ೋ ಯ !ರುದe Eೕಲ ಂಡ ಕಲಂ ಗಳ ಅನfಯ ಈ :ೋhಾ ೋಪiಾ ಪvÀæ."

7. On perusal of the material placed before the

Court, at this stage, there are prima-facie materials to

attract the alleged commission of the offence by this

accused. Considering the previous antecedents of the

NC: 2025:KHC:46837

HC-KAR

accused and also the pending cases against him, at this

stage, if the accused is released on bail, it would affect the

Society at large and there is every possibility of

threatening or tampering prosecution witnesses. The

alleged commission of offence is heinous in nature. The

Trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on

record and passed the impugned order. I do not find any

error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the

Trial Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

DH