- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10618 CRL.A No. 394 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 394 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. RAVIKUMARA M.K., S/O M.S. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.151/1 GURUKRUPA NILAYA HIPPEANJANEYA SWAMY LAYOUT NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL-562 123. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM M., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MANJEGOWDA K.G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. 2. CHETHAN H.S., S/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT HURULIHALLI KASABA HOBALI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. K.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10618 CRL.A No. 394 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU, IN CRL.MISC.NO.103/2025 DATED 03.02.2025 AND MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO ORDER TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CR.NO.19/2025, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 103(1), 3(5) OF BNS, UNDER SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, ON THE FILE OF NELAMANGALA POLICE RURAL STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 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 learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, in the complaint, no specific allegation against this appellant and his name is also not mentioned and the complainant, only on information, went to the spot and found that his father was injured and accused No.1 himself told that he himself and another person assaulted him. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that though the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2015 was invoked and the same not applies to this - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10618 CRL.A No. 394 of 2025 appellant, since this appellant also belongs to very same community and there is no recovery or allegation against him. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court that very complainant filed affidavit before the Trial Court stating that the deceased was suffering from jaundice and he was addicted to alcohol. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this court discussion made in paragraph No.9 of the order of the Trial Court, wherein specific mention is made that deceased was suffering from jaundice and addicted to alcohol for many years and was refusing to take medicine for his disease. It is also stated that this appellant, who is brother-in-law of accused No.1 came there for homeopathy treatment for his back pain and when such averment is made in the objection, this appellant is entitled for bail. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also reiterates the submission made before the Trial Court with regard to the fact that deceased was suffering from jaundice and was addicted to alcohol for many years and not objected for the appeal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10618 CRL.A No. 394 of 2025 4. Learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1-State also not disputes the fact that no averment in the complaint filed by the complainant with regard to making any assault. When the Trial Court rejected the application only on the ground that matter is under investigation, the very accused No.1 made reference of assault made by himself and another person though not named the name of this appellant. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional SPP for the respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and also taking note of contents of complaint, the Court has to take note of contents of complaint at the time of grant of bail. Having considered contents of the complaint, there are no eye witnesses to the incident and in the complaint, it is stated that when the complainant went to the spot, accused No.1 only revealed about an attempt made to commit theft of coconut from the garden and also statement made by the accused No.1 is that he himself and another person assaulted, but no specific overt act allegation against this appellant and also taking note of the very affidavit filed by respondent No.2 before the Trial Court and no objections to the bail petition and having considered the factual aspects of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10618 CRL.A No. 394 of 2025 case, in the absence of any specific allegation against this appellant, it is a fit case to exercise the powers to grant bail, subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The appellant shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety 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 ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50