Karnataka High Court
Sri S Revanth vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48689
CRL.A No. 2422 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2422 OF 2024 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
SRI S. REVANTH
S/O LATE SUBRAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT JAGAJEEVANAPALYA,
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN AND TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563115
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. RAM SINGH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SRINIVASAPURA POLICE STATION,
KOLAR,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. SRI AMARNATHA S.
S/O SEENAPPA,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,.
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH COURT
R/AT DAYANANDA ROAD,
OF KARNATAKA
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN AND TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563115
3. DR. CHANDRAKALA
W/O LATE SRINIVASAN,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
JAKIR HUSSAIN MOHALLA,
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563135.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY KUM. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL SPP. FOR R1,
SMT. C. H. HANUMANTHARAYA, ADV. FOR R3.)
[CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED:17.11.2025.]
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48689
CRL.A No. 2422 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN
SPL.S.C.NO.3/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR AND ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 109,120-B,201,212,302,307 R/W SEC.149
OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the
order dated 09.10.2024 passed in Spl.S.C.No.03/2024 by
the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (for
short 'the trial Court').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to their rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the
basis of the complaint filed by Amaranatha.S, Srinivaspura
Police have registered the case in Crime No.372/2023
against accused Nos.1 to 4 and three others for the
commission of offence under sections 120B, 302 and 307
NC: 2025:KHC:48689
HC-KAR
IPC. After investigation, the IO has submitted charge
sheet against accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offence under
sections 120B, 109, 212, 307, 302, 201 r/w 149 of IPC
and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
4. The appellant/accused No.9 had filed application
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail, which came
to be rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the
order of rejection, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. Learned counsel Sri K.Ram Singh, appearing on
behalf of the appellant would submit that the appellant has
not committed any offence as alleged against him. As per
charge sheet, the allegation against this appellant is that,
the appellant was a II year B.Com student and he had
conspired along with co-accused persons. The appellant
was standing outside the building. The prosecution claims
that the complainant Amarnatha.S-CW1, E.Krishna-CW2
and CW3- Ratan Parja are the eyewitnesses. Statement of
CW2 and CW3 under Section 161 are said to be recorded
on 28.10.2023. The incident took place on 23.10.2023.
NC: 2025:KHC:48689
HC-KAR
There is an inordinate unexplained delay of 5 days in
recording the statements of CW2 and CW3, hence, they
are the planted witnesses. If really they are the
eyewitness, nothing would have prevented them to give
their statement at the earliest point of time or at the time
of drawing the inquest proceedings. There is no individual
overt act attributed against the appellant and therefore,
the allegations made in the complaint are vague and
ambiguous. The appellant is stranger to the alleged eye-
witnesses. Test Identification Parade (TIP) is said to have
been conducted to CWs.1 to 3 on 09.01.2024. There is an
inordinate unexplained delay of 70 days in conducting TIP.
The TIP should be conducted at the earliest point of time,
to know whether the ongoing investigation is on the
correct lines or not. The procedure adopted by the Taluka
Magistrate at the time of conducting TIP is not as per the
procedure required under law. There is no proforma to
maintain at the time of conducting TIP. The TIP
maintained by the Taluka Executive Magistrate is contrary
to the law. The Investigating Officer has not seized any
NC: 2025:KHC:48689
HC-KAR
weapon at the instance of the appellant. It is said that 1
motorcycle and 1 mobile phone was recovered and the
same do not stand in the name of the appellant.
Statements of CWs.1 to 3 are said to have been recorded
under section 164 of Cr.P.C on 08.11.2023. In the said
statement also, no individual overt acts have been
attributed against the appellant. These eye-witnesses are
the planted eye-witnesses. The appellant was arrested on
01.11.2023. The appellant was a B.Com student and his
custodial interrogation was not required. If he continues to
be behind the bars for an indefinite period, his education
career will be collapsed and his future will be spoiled.
There is no any criminal antecedent against him. The
allegation made in the charge sheet in Column No.17 is
altogether different from the statements of alleged eye-
witnesses i.e. CW1- Amarnatha.S, CW2-E.Krishna and
CW3-Rathan Parja. There are so many pending cases
against the deceased and he had so many enemies in the
society. Hence, threat to life of the deceased from others
cannot be ruled out. The persons who are inimically
NC: 2025:KHC:48689
HC-KAR
disposed towards the appellant have implicated his name
in the said crime. There is no consistency and
corroboration with the ocular and medical evidence. The
Investigating Agency has cited 59 charge sheet witnesses.
To examine all these witnesses, it may take considerable
time. Though the incident said to have been taken place
about an year and a month ago, so far charges are not
framed. Speedy trial is the fundamental right of every
citizen. The appellant is ready to furnish solvent surety.
On all these grounds, it is sought for allowing this appeal.
6. To substantiate his argument, he relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India in
Crl.A.No.3173/2024, and the case of Javed Gulam Nabi
Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and Another in
Crl.A.No.2787/2024 and the order passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of S.Abhi @
Abhilash Reddy vs. State of Karnataka in
Crl.P.No.7462/2014.
NC: 2025:KHC:48689
HC-KAR
7. Statement of objections has been filed on behalf of
the State. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has also
filed his written objections. They have reiterated the
averments made in their respective statement of
objections and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has relied on
the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(1) Deepak Yadav vs. State of UP (2022) 8 SCC
(2) Gobarbhai Singala vs. State of Gujarat, (2008)
3 SCC 775
(3) Balu Khalde vs. State of Maharashtra, (2023)
13 SCC 365
(4) Jagjeeti Singh vs. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC
(5) Sangitaben Datanta vs. State of Gujarat,
(2019) 14 SCC 522
(6) State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1702.
9. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of the materials available on record, the following
points would arise for my consideration:
NC: 2025:KHC:48689
HC-KAR
(1) Whether the trial Court has committed an error in
rejecting the bail application?
(2) What order?
10. My answer to the above points are as follows:
(1) Regarding Point No.1 - in the negative.
(2) Point No.2 - As per final order.
11. I have examined the materials placed before this
court. On the basis of the complaint filed by Amarnatha.S,
Srinivasapura Police have registered the case in Crime No.
372/2023 against the accused Nos.1 to 4 and others for
the commission of alleged offence. After investigation, the
Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet
against accused Nos.1 to 9 for the commission of offence
under sections 120B, 109, 212, 307, 302, 201 r/w 149 of
IPC and sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989. The present appellant is the accused No.9. In
column No.17 of the charge sheet, the allegations made
against accused No.9 are as under:
"ಈತನು ಆ ೋ -1 ೇಣು ೋ ಾ ರವರ ಅಣನ ಮಗ ಾ ದು,
ಆ ೋ -1 ರವರು ೕ ಾಸ! gÀವರನು" ಹ$ೆ ೈಷಮ'ದ (ನ")ೆಯ+,
NC: 2025:KHC:48689
HC-KAR
-ೊ)ೆ .ಾಡ0ೇ-ೆಂ2ಾಗ ಎ। ೇಣು ೋ ಾ 4ಾಗೂ ಉ6ದ
DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÁzÀ J2 ¸ÀAvÉÆõï, J3 ªÀÄÄ£ÉÃAzÀæ, J4 ºÀ¶ðvï, J5 ZÀAzÀ£ï,
J6 £ÁUÉÃAzÀæ, J7 CgÀÄuï ಕು.ಾ8 ಮತು9 ಎ8 ೌತ; ರವ ೊಂ< ೆ
=ೇ>-ೊಂಡು ೕ ಾಸ! ರವರನು" -ೊ)ೆ .ಾಡಲು C¥À ಾ@ಕ ಒಳ ಸಂಚು
ರೂ D, ಎ1, ಎ2, ಮತು9 ಎ3 ರವರು < ಾಂಕ: 23.10.2023 ರಂದು
ೕ ಾಸಪIರ ಪಟKಣದ ೕ ಾಸಪIರ ಮುಳ0ಾ ಲು ರ=ೆ9ಯ 4ೊಗಳ ೆ ೆ
-ಾ L ಬ6Nರುವ ೕ ಾಸ! ರವ> ೆ =ೇ>ದ ¤.ಾOಣ ಹಂತದ+,ದ
0ಾ8 ಅಂP ೆ=ೊKೕ ೆಂQ ಕಟKಡದ ಆವರಣದ+,ದ .ಾRನ ಮರದ ಹS9ರ
ಮTಾ'ಹ" ¸ÀÄ.ಾರು 12-15 ಗಂUೆ ಸಮಯದ+, ೕ ಾಸ! ರವರನು"
ತ)ಾV8ಗ6ಂದ 4ೊWೆದು -ೊ)ೆ .ಾಡು ಾಗ FvÀ£ÀÄ Xಾ ಾದರು ಅ+, ೆ
ಬಂದು ತWೆಯಬಹು2ೆಂದು ಕಟKಡದ 4ೊರಗWೆ ಂತು ಆ ೋ -5 ಚಂದ!
ಮತು9 ಎ8 ೌತ; ರವ ೊಂ< ೆ =ೇ> ಾವ(D -ೊ)ೆ .ಾಡಲು
ಸಹಕ>DರುZಾ9 ೆ. ಆದ>ಂದ ಸದ> ಆ ೋ ಯು ಕಲಂ: 120([), 109,
302 ೆ/R 149 >ೕZಾ' ಅಪ ಾಧ ೆಸ ರುವIದು ದೃಢಪ_Kರುತ92ೆ."
12. As per the charge sheet, CW1 is the complainant.
CW2-E.Krishna and CW3-Ratan Purja are the eyewitnesses
to the alleged incident. The Investigating Officer has
produced CWs.1 to 3 before the jurisdictional Magistrate to
record the statement under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C.
13. Perusal of the statement of CW1 to CW3 under
Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. and also other prosecution
papers reveal that there are prima facie materials to
constitute the commission of alleged offence against this
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48689
HC-KAR
present appellant. Apart from this, it is brought to my
notice by the learned counsel for respondent No.3- Sri
Sunil D Galle, the Assistant Superintendent of District
Prison, Chikkaballapura Taluk, Chikkaballapura, has
allegedly, lodged a complaint against accused Nos.1 to 9.
Among them, the present appellant is the accused No.8,
UTP No.551/2023 for the offences in Crime No.164/2025.
On the basis of the complaint, the Chikkapallapura Rural
Police have registered the case in Crime No.164/2025
against accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offences punishable
under Section 121, 127(1), 132, 238, 352, 351(2),
351(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 of Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The present
appellant is the accused No.8 in the said case. The
commission of alleged offences are heinous in nature,
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. At this
stage, if the accused/appellant is released on bail, it will
affect the society at large. There is every possibility of
tampering or threatening the prosecution witnesses.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48689
HC-KAR
14. This Court has dismissed the appeal filed by accused
No.5-Gautam.R. and accused No.8-Chandan.S in
Crl.A.No.2150/2024 clubbed with Crl.A.No.2288/2024
dated 14.03.2025.
15. On careful examination of the entire materials on
record, I do not find any error/illegality in the impugned
order passed by the trial Court. Hence, I answer Point
No.1 in negative.
Regarding Point No.2
16. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
DHA
