Ananda vs The State By
2025 Latest Caselaw 9048 Kant

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9048 Kant
Judgement Date : 10 October, 2025

Karnataka High Court

Ananda vs The State By on 10 October, 2025

                                                   -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC:40208
                                                          CRL.A No. 838 of 2025


                       HC-KAR



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                              DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
                                                 BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 838 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /
                                          483(BNSS))
                       BETWEEN:

                       ANANDA
                       S/O. PUTTASWAMY,
                       AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
                       R/AT SANNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
                       NONAVINAKERE HOBLI,
                       TIPTUR TALUK-572201.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                       (BY SRI. KANTHARAJAPPA M. G., ADVOCATE)
                       AND:

                       1.    THE STATE BY
                             POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
                             NONAVINAKERE POLICE,
                             TIPTUR RURAL CIRCLE,
                             REP. BY HIGH COURT SPP,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N             HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
                             BENGALURU-560001

                       2.    LAKSHMI,
                             W/O LATE PARAMESH,
                             AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
                             R/AT SANNENAHALLI, N.V.,
                             KERE HOBLI,
                             TIPTUR TALUK,572201
                             TUMKURU DISTRICT.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
                       (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1,
                        SRI. ANIRUDH CHAMUNDA, ADV. FOR R2.)
                                  -2-
                                                    NC: 2025:KHC:40208
                                                CRL.A No. 838 of 2025


 HC-KAR



     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 OF
BNSS) PRAYING TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF IN
SPL.C.NO.133/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S.302
AND 450 OF IPC AND 3(2) (va), OF SC/ST (PA) AMENDMENT
ACT, 2015 OF NONAVINAKERE POLICE STATION, TIPTUR
RURAL CIRCLE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT TUMAKURU.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                       ORAL JUDGMENT

Appellant/accused who is in judicial custody, has

preferred this appeal through Legal Services Authority against

the Judgment of convention and order on sentence dated 12th

June, 2024, passed in Criminal Misc.No.816 of 2021 by III

Additional District & Sessions Judge at Tumakuru (for short "the

trial Court").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Assistant

Superintendent of Police, Tiptur Sub-Division, submitted

Charge-sheet against the accused for offence punishable under

Sections 302, 450 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of

NC: 2025:KHC:40208

HC-KAR

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SC/ST (POA) Act").

4. It is the case of the prosecution that Paramesha who is

husband of first informant-Lakshmi belongs to Schedule Tribe.

There was enmity between him and the accused in relation to

financial transaction. Therefore, with that motive on 27th

August 2021 at 11.30 pm, the accused entered into Farm-house

of Paramesha situate at Sannenahalli, and committed assault on

Paramesha with sickle and club and killed him. Thus, the

accused has committed the alleged offence.

Learned Counsel Sri M.G. Kantharappa, appearing for the

appellant, would submit that the investigation is already

complete and trial already commenced. There are no eye-

witnesses as per the charge-sheet. The entire case is based on

circumstantial evidence. Lakshmi-wife of the deceased is

examined as PW1. She has clearly admitted in her cross-

examination that she does not know about the financial

transaction between the accused and the deceased. The other

seizure mazahar witnesses have not supported the case of the

prosecution. The prosecution has already examined 23

NC: 2025:KHC:40208

HC-KAR

witnesses. Appellant is in judicial custody for more than four

years. The material witnesses have not supported the case of

the prosecution, the trial Court has rejected the bail application

only on the ground that other witnesses have to be examined

by the prosecution. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow

the appeal.

Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader,

appearing for the State has not disputed the date of arrest of

the accused, so also, the period of detention of the accused i.e.

for nearly 4 years. It is also not disputed that the trial Court

has already recorded the statement of 23 witnesses. However,

in view of the fact that trial is not yet concluded, he seeks for

rejection of the appeal.

I have examined the material placed before me. Perusal

of charge-sheet makes it clear that there are no witnesses to

the incident. Complainant PW1-Lakshmi is also not an eye-

witness. During the course of cross-examination, she has

admitted that she does not know about the financial transaction

between her husband and accused. Further, the material

witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution.

NC: 2025:KHC:40208

HC-KAR

Considering the argument advanced on behalf of the

applicant/accused, without expressing any opinion on the merits

of the case, only for deciding this Application, I am of the

opinion that it is just proper to allow the appeal. Hence, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) Appeal is allowed;

ii) Order dated 12th June, 2024, passed in Criminal

Petition No.816 of 2024 by the III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru is set

aside;