- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13828 CRL.A No. 392 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.392 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAGU YANE RAGHAVENDRA, S/O. PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHI. KADADAKATTE VILLAGE, NYAMATHI TALUK, DAVANAGERE-577001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.R.SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY NYAMATHI POLICE, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2 . SMT. CHAITRA, W/O SHIVARAJ, MARIGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KOTEHAL POST, NYAMATHI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP A/W. SMT. K.P.YASHODA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 – SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14- A(2) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13828 CRL.A No. 392 of 2025 ORDER DATED 15.01.2025 REJECTING THE BAIL APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT IN SPL.C.NO.485 OF 2024 (CR.200/2024) NYAMATHI POLICE STATION UNDER SECTIONS 61(2), 74, 191(3), 329(4), 351(3), 118(1), 115(2), 109(1), 189(4), 103(1), 352, 190, 62 of BNS AND UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v- a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 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 for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that this appellant, who has been arrayed as accused No.3 and 15 to 20 persons with a common object, formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed the house of the complainant and dragged the complainant’s husband from their house and abused in a filthy language and also taken the caste name and when C.W.1 tried to rescue him, she was also abused by accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused Nos.1 and 2 inflicted injury with knife, as a result, the complainant’s husband succumbed to the injuries. After committing the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13828 CRL.A No. 392 of 2025 murder, they all left the place when C.Ws.14 to 17 came from their offices and this accused left the place by leaving his chappal at the spot and he was also a part of unlawful assembly and with a common object all of them committed the murder. The prosecution after investigation invoked the offences under Sections 61(2), 74, 191(2), 191(3), 329(4), 351(3), 118(1), 115(2), 109(1), 189(4), 103(1), 352, 190 and 62 of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’ for short). 3. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court that in the complaint specific overt-act allegation is made against accused Nos.1 and 2 and the name of this appellant was not found in the complaint. The learned counsel contend that when 164 statement was recorded before the learned Magistrate also, the name of this appellant was not mentioned and only while filing the charge-sheet, this appellant has been arrayed as accused No.3. In column No.17 of charge-sheet except stating that there was an unlawful assembly and this appellant while leaving the place left his chappal at the spot, no other material is found with - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13828 CRL.A No. 392 of 2025 regard to the overt-act allegation against the appellant and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State would contend that in total 13 persons are arrayed as accused and all of them formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed the house of the complainant and dragged the victim and thereafter committed the murder and all of them shared common object in committing the murder. Though no overt-act allegation is made against this appellant, the Court has to take note of that at this juncture cannot segregate the overt-act of each of the accused. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State, no doubt, special enactment is invoked against the appellant, but no specific attribution against this appellant that he used the word of caste name and an omnibus statement is made that abused taking the caste name. Apart from that, with regard to overt-act is concerned, there is no overt-act allegation against this appellant, but only arrayed him as accused as one of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13828 CRL.A No. 392 of 2025 member of unlawful assembly. Apart from that, in column No.17 of the charge-sheet, it is noted that he left the place leaving his chappal at the spot. Having taken note of the factual aspects of the case and overt-act allegation is only against accused Nos.1 and 2, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant by imposing certain conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal appeal is allowed. (ii) The appellant is granted bail subject to the appellant executing his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (iii) The appellant shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iv) The appellant shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13828 CRL.A No. 392 of 2025 (v) 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 MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38