- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11614 CRL.A No. 375 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. 375 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. NIKHIL @ PAVAN JAKIE S/O. LATE SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS WORKING AT FLIPCART COMPANY RESIDING AT AMBEDKAR COLONY MALUR TOWN, MALUR KOLAR-563 130 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. T. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALUR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI. K. KIRAN KUMAR @ SARATHY S/O.KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT TALAKUNTE VILLAGE LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR – 563 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11614 CRL.A No. 375 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR IN CRL.MISC.NO.635/2021 REJECTING THE BAIL PETITION OF THE APPELLANT AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO GRANT THE BAIL TO THE APPELLANT, IN SPL.S.C.NO.10/2021, FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 114 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2), (5) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is successive appeal for bail filed by the accused No.2 and earlier this Court rejected the appeal for bail of appellant in Crl.A.No.373/2022 vide order dated 22.01.2024. Now, the counsel would contend that this Court earlier while rejecting the appeal for bail comes to the conclusion that the said incident has been witnessed by CW1 to CW3. The CW1 was along with the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11614 CRL.A No. 375 of 2025 victim and CW2 and CW3 were also coming on another bike. The CW10 who is the sugarcane juice vendor has also stated regarding the incident even though he has not identified the persons who assaulted the deceased. Hence, comes to the conclusion that learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail petition. 3. Now, the counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the very complainant who was along with the deceased examined as PW1 and he turned hostile and other eye witnesses who have been examined as PW2 and PW3 have also turned hostile. The CW10 who is PW5 also turned hostile. 4. The counsel for respondent No.2 also appear for PW1 who is the de-facto complainant. The counsel appearing for the State would contend that in the charge sheet, specific overt act allegation is made against this petitioner that he inflicted injury with the long and the same was snatched by the accused No.7 and there is a specific overt act. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11614 CRL.A No. 375 of 2025 5. The counsel appearing for the appellant brought to notice of this Court that already granted bail in favour of accused No.7 and specific overt act allegation is made against the accused No.7 who has been enlarged on bail. This Court having noticed the conflicting statement of witnesses who happens to be the eye witnesses, granted the bail. Hence, on the ground of parity the appellant is entitled for the bail. 6. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the State and also looking into charge sheet averments made in the column No.17 specific overt act allegation is made against this petitioner as well as accused No.7. The accused No.7 snatched the long from this appellant and he inflicted more injuries when he already been granted bail and this petitioner also entitled for bail on the ground of parity as well as the eye witnesses who have been made the statement before the Police have also been examined as PW1 to PW3 and they have turned hostile. Apart from that this Court while - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11614 CRL.A No. 375 of 2025 rejecting the bail, made an observation with regard to the witnessing of incident by CW10. The CW10 also examined before the Trial Court, he also did not support the case of prosecution and having considered all these material on record and also parity is also applicable to the present appellant. Hence, the appellant is entitled for bail. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the appellant/accused No.2 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.75/2021 of Malur Police Station, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 114 R/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(5) of SC/ST, POA Act 1989 subject to the following conditions: (i) The appellant shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11614 CRL.A No. 375 of 2025 two lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (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 RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33