- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8303 CRL.A No. 312 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2025 BETWEEN: CHANDAN K @ CHANDAN GOWDA S/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT BYREGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 123 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI P.S. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001 Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8303 CRL.A No. 312 of 2025 2. VENKATESHAPPA W/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT VINAYAKANAGARA, GANESHANAGUDI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE-562123 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. CHANDAN K., ADV. FOR R2 (ABSENT)) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 24.01.2025 ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE ACCUSED NO.1/APPELLANT U/S 439 OF CR.P.C., PASSED BY THE HONBLE 2nd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT BENGALURU. b) CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE THE ACCUSED NO.1/APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.156/2023, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 302,307,120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC, U/S 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, IN SPL.C.NO.617/2023, ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 2nd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8303 CRL.A No. 312 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by accused No.1 praying to set aside the order dated 24.01.2025 passed in Spl.Case.No.617/2023 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, wherein the bail application of the appellant - accused No.1 sought in respect of Crime No.156/2023 of Madanayakanahalli Police Station registered for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.1 and the learned High Court Government - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8303 CRL.A No. 312 of 2025 Pleader for respondent No.1 - State. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.03.2023, at about 9.00 p.m., when deceased Chandrashekar was chatting with his friends by name, Shashank, Arunkumar, and Lokesh, near the layout in Byragondanahally, accused No.1 came there. There was an altercation between the deceased and accused persons with respect to financial transactions, in which accused No.1 threatened to teach him a lesson. At about 10.00 p.m., when the deceased Chandrashekar was riding his motorcycle and Arunkumar and Lokesh were pillion riders, they were proceeding in one motorcycle and another eyewitness, Shashank, in another motorcycle in order to go to their house. Then, in front of the house of one Hanumantharayappa on Sondekoppa road, the accused came in a Scorpio car bearing No. KA-41-M-8528, driven by accused No.1 and dashed to the motorcycle driven by the deceased. The deceased and pillion riders fell on the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8303 CRL.A No. 312 of 2025 ground, accused No.1 ran the vehicle over the deceased. The friends of the injured took injured Chandrashekar to the hospital. On receiving the information, the father of the deceased went to the hospital and enquired with the deceased, who told him that the accused No.1 with others ran over the vehicle on him. On the very night the deceased succumbed to injuries at 12.10 a.m. In the morning, at 5.30 a.m., the father of the deceased lodged the complaint. On the basis of said complaint, a case came to be registered against this appellant, accused No.2- Gowtham and another in Crime No.156/2023 of Madanayakanahally PS for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Appellant/accused No.1 came to be arrested on 18.03.2023 and he is in judicial custody. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant and others for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120(b) r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The appellant/accused No.1 filed Crl.Misc.No.1049/2023 seeking bail, and the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8303 CRL.A No. 312 of 2025 same came to be rejected by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, by order dated 19.06.2023. Earlier, the appellant - accused No.1 had filed two appeals challenging the rejection of his bail petition and they came to be dismissed by this Court. Now, the appellant - accused No.1 filed bail application before the Special Court in Spl.C.No.617/2023 and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order, which is challenged in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that CWs.2 to 4 are eyewitnesses to the incident and they have already been examined as PWs.1 to 3. They have not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that PW.1 was injured in the alleged incident. The post mortem report indicate that there are abrasions over the dead body of the deceased and that will not corroborate with the allegation of running over on the Scorpio vehicle of the accused over the body of injured, as - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8303 CRL.A No. 312 of 2025 no tyre marks are found over the body of the deceased. The alleged dying declaration made by the deceased before his father is a oral dying declaration. As the material witnesses are examined, there is no threat to material witnesses. The appellant - accused No.1 is in judicial custody since 18.03.2023. As the prosecution has to examine other charge sheet witnesses, the trial will take a long time. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellant - accused No.1. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that there was a motive for this appellant - accused No.1 to kill the deceased. The appellant - accused No.1 conspired with the other accused to kill the deceased and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the appellant drove Scorpio car and dashed to the motor cycle on which the deceased and another two persons were traveling and ran over his vehicle over the deceased. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. The - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8303 CRL.A No. 312 of 2025 post mortem report indicates that there are 20 injuries and death is due to cardio respiratory arrest, injury to vital organs such as the lungs and brain. Merely because the eyewitnesses are not supported the case of prosecution, is not a ground for grant of bail, as offence alleged is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The case of the prosecution is not only based on eyewitnesses but also oral dying declaration made by the deceased before his father, who has already been examined as PW.5 and other circumstantial evidence. If the appellant - accused No.1 is granted bail, he may abscond and hamper the trial and threaten the remaining prosecution witnesses. With this, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned order and other charge sheet materials. 7. Earlier, this Court has dismissed the Crl.A.Nos.1360/2023 and 1213/2024, whereunder this - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8303 CRL.A No. 312 of 2025 appellant - accused No.1 has challenged rejection of his bail petition. Now, the challenge made by this appellant - accused No.1 is the order on his successive bail application. The ground urged in this successive petition is that eyewitnesses are examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Merely, because eyewitnesses are examined and they are not supported the case of prosecution, is not a ground for grant of bail. PW.5 is the father of the deceased before whom deceased has made oral dying declaration. PW.5 has supported the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is not only based on the statement of eyewitnesses but also other circumstantial evidence. The offence alleged against the appellant is heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. If the appellant - accused No.1 is granted bail, there are chances of he absconding and not available to the trial and threatening the remaining prosecution witnesses. The appellant has not made out any grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8303 CRL.A No. 312 of 2025 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27