- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16295 CRL.A No. 265 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.265 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. RAHUL @ RAHUL NAIKA SON OF RAJU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT 1ST CROSS KUVEMPUNAGAR KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 562117 …APPELLANT (BY SRI TOMY SEBASTIAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI MADURAJ R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KANAKAPURA TOWN POLICE STATION REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 2. SRI. LAXMAN S/O LATE VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16295 CRL.A No. 265 of 2025 R/AT SIDDAPPAJI ROAD, MALAGALU KANAKAPURA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562117 3. ANISH KUMAR @ ANISH S/O VYRAMUNDI AGE 26 YEARS R/AT NEARBY JET PUBLIC SCHOOL HOUSING BOARD KANAKAPURA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 117 4. GOVINDARAJ S/O VENKATAIAH AGE 39 YEARS R/ST SIDDAPPAJI TEMPLE ROAD MALAGALU KANAKAPURA TOWN RAMANGARA DISTRICT – 562 117. 5. KUM. LATHA D/O CHALUVRAJ AGE 23 YEARS R/AT SIDDAPPAJI TEMPLE ROAD MALAGALU KANAKAPURA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 117 6. THEJASWINI D/O LAKSHMAN AGED 23 YEARS R/AT SIDDAPPAJI TEMPLE ROAD MALAGALU KANAKAPURA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 117 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16295 CRL.A No. 265 of 2025 7. SMT. MADHU W/O GOVINDARAJU AGED 36 YEARS R/AT SIDDAPPAJI TEMPLE ROAD MALAGALU KANAKAPURA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 117 8. CHAITANYA W/O HARISH AGED 23 YEARS R/AT SIDDAPPAJI TEMPLE ROAD MALAGALU KANAKAPURA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 117 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SMT. SHILPA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4, R6-R8; R5 – V/O DT.07.04.2025, SERVICE IS H/S) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 20.12.2024 PASSED BY 1st ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN CRL.MISC.NO.1037/2024 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16295 CRL.A No. 265 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that this appellant is in custody from 07.08.2024 and also would contend that CW1 sustained injury on account of assault made by accused Nos.1 and 2 on the head. The specific overt act allegation against this appellant is that he assaulted on the shoulder of CW1. The counsel for the appellant brought to notice of this Court that the injury sustained by CW1 on his shoulder is simple in nature. The counsel also submits that this Court already granted bail in favour of accused No.7 in Crl.P.2347/2024 wherein allegation is made against accused No.7 that the he pulled the cloth of CW5. The counsel brought to notice of this Court that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order in Crl.P.No.1614/2025 granting bail on the ground that he was present along with - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16295 CRL.A No. 265 of 2025 other accused cannot be a ground to reject the application. In the case on hand, the allegation against accused No.3 is that he assaulted with long but there is no cut injuries mentioned in the wound certificate. Hence, he is entitled for bail. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would vehemently contend that though the appellant is in custody from 07.08.2024, the specific overt act allegation is made against him is that he assaulted with long on the shoulder of CW1 and specific overt act allegation is made against accused Nos.1 and 2 that they caused injury on the vital part. Though the injury sustained by CW1 on his shoulder is simple in nature, the Court has to take note of the fact that all of them formed an unlawful assembly with the common intention to take away the life and the injury sustained by CW1 is simple in nature cannot be a ground to enlarge the appellant on bail. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16295 CRL.A No. 265 of 2025 4. The learned counsel appearing for the State also would vehemently contend that the Court has to take note of the fact that the incident was taken place and also all of them have gathered with the common intention to take away the life and came in the motorcycle and assaulted CW1 and CW2 and so also CW6 and CW1 to CW3 have sustained injuries. When accused persons have participated in the alleged incident with the common intention to take away the life and assaulted, the appellant is not entitled for bail. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and this Court already granted bail in favour of accused No.7 in Crl.P.No.2347/2024 wherein the accusation made against him that he pulled the cloth of CW5 and kicked. In the case on hand, there is specific overt act allegation against this appellant is that he assaulted with long on the shoulder of CW1. The counsel for the appellant brought to notice of this Court referring the wound certificate of CW1 and submits that nature of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16295 CRL.A No. 265 of 2025 injury is simple in nature in respect of shoulder injury is concerned i.e., the lacerated wound on the forehead and lacerated wound on the right shoulder and both injuries are simple in nature. No doubt, while considering the material on record, the Court has to take note of intention as contended by the counsel for respondent No.2. But the fact is that the overt act allegation is made against accused Nos.1 and 2 that both of them have assaulted CW1 on the vital part of the head and shoulder injury is simple in nature and allegation made against this appellant is that he inflicted injury with the long and not found any cut wound injuries and also investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is also filed and this appellant is in custody from 07.08.2024. Having taken note of overt act allegation against this appellant and nature of injury sustained by the injured is simple in nature, it is appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The counsel for respondent No.2 submits that if the appellant is enlarged on bail, there is a chance of tampering of prosecution witnesses and also causing of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16295 CRL.A No. 265 of 2025 threat and the same can be safeguarded by imposing conditions. 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the appellant /accused No.3 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.112/2024 of Kanakapura Police Station, Ramanagara registered for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 76, 109(1), 329(4), 61(2), 54, 324(4) and 190 of BNSS, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, subject to the following conditions: (i) The appellant shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16295 CRL.A No. 265 of 2025 (ii) The appellant shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The appellant shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN