- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11378 CRL.A No. 32 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.32 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI PRUTHVIRAJ S/O LATE RAJESH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE, BYRANAHALLI POST, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M N ABHILASH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NANJUNDA GOWDA M R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VEMAGAL POLICE STATION, KOLAR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU-560 001 2. SRI. PRAVEEN.R S/O RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11378 CRL.A No. 32 of 2025 NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563133 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP A/W SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI M C VENKATARANGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2024 PASSED IN SPL S.C.NO.12/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL (IN CR.NO.98/2024 OF VEMAGAL POLICE STATION) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEJC.3(1)(r) AND (s) AND 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST POA ACT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that this Court already granted the bail in favour of accused No.11 in Crl.P.No.2239/2024 vide - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11378 CRL.A No. 32 of 2025 order dated 16.01.2025 and similar allegation is made against accused No.11 as that of this appellant and hence, this appellant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The counsel also would vehemently contend that witnesses who have given the statements are relatives i.e., CW5, 6 and 14 and none of the witnesses who have witnessed the incident were subjected to recording of statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and hence, the theory of the prosecution is that this appellant is also indulged in committing the offence of murder is doubtful and the statement of witnesses also contrary to each other. Hence, the appellant is entitled for bail. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/State would vehemently contend that the specific allegation is against this appellant that he inflicted the injury with the iron rod on the legs of the deceased and the counsel brought to notice of this Court PM report wherein the injuries found on both the left and right legs of the deceased i.e., injury Nos.13, 17, 18 as well as - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11378 CRL.A No. 32 of 2025 injury Nos.24 to 26 are corresponds with the act of this appellant and hence, overt act allegation corresponds with the medical evidence and hence, it is not a case to enlarge the appellant on bail. 4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 also filed statement of objections contending that specific overt act allegation is made by the eye-witnesses i.e., CW8 to 12 that this appellant assaulted with iron rod on the legs of the deceased and even Investigating Officer seized the blood stained iron rod by this appellant and hence, there is a material against this appellant. 5. In reply to the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that though iron rod was seized, the same was not stained with blood. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, no doubt, this Court granted the bail in favour of accused No.11 in Crl.A.No.2239/2024 and this Court - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11378 CRL.A No. 32 of 2025 while granting bail, taken note of the fact that accused Nos.14 and 16 have also granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench and accused No.11 also stands in the same footing. But in the case on hand, on perusal of material on record, it discloses that the specific allegation is made against this appellant stating that he inflicted the injury with iron rod on the legs of the deceased and hence, the observation made by co-ordinate Bench of this Court granting the bail in favour of accused No.11 cannot be relied upon by this Court and the same is against the material on record and the same also not binds this Court when specific overt act allegation is made against this appellant. The Court has to look into the material on record wherein it discloses that this appellant inflicted injury with the iron rod on the legs of the deceased and the injuries correspond with the PM report i.e., injury Nos.13, 17, 18 as well as 24 to 26 and PM report is also discloses that there were 32 injuries and injury Nos.9, 13, 17, 18, 20 and 21 have clear cut mark with one sharp end and one with blend end. Thus, this is nothing but a barbaric act taking a life of the person. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11378 CRL.A No. 32 of 2025 When such material is available on record, it is not a case for exercising the discretion in favour of the appellant as contended by the counsel for the appellant. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN