- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16772 CRL.A No. 401 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.401 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SRIDHAR L.M., S/O MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, WORK AS COOK HELPER, R/AT LOCHERUVUPALLI VILLAGE, RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPUR TALUK, KOLAR – 563 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. T. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KOLAR RURAL POLICE STATION, KOLAR–563 101, KOLAR DISTRICT, REPRSENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. CHOWDAMMA, W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT JANNAGHATTA VILLAGE, SUGATURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR-563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. K.V.PRAKASH, ADDVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16772 CRL.A No. 401 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL.A BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2023 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR IN SPL.S.C.IPC AND SC/ST.16/2023 REJECTING THE BAIL PETITION OF THE APPELLANT AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN SPL.S.C.NO.16/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 348, 120B, 114, 341 R/W 34 AND SECTION 3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989, PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITONAL DISTRICT 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 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1 State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 was having illicit relationship with accused No.3 and when the deceased came in their way by causing obstruction to continue the relationship by accused Nos.1 and 3, accused Nos.1 and 2 committed the murder of the deceased by assaulting with iron rod. At the first instance, the name of accused No.1 was referred and it was also referred that the other accused person also assaulted with - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16772 CRL.A No. 401 of 2025 iron rod, but the name was not mentioned and subsequently on the next day, statement of the eye-witnesses was recorded and disclosed the name of appellant/accused No.2. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that FIR was registered against accused Nos.1 and 3 and accused No.2 was registered as unknown. The learned counsel submits that only accused No.1 was having the motive and accused No.2/appellant was not having any motive and he has been falsely implicated in the case and hence he may be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel submits that the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed and he is in custody from last two years. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the very presence of this appellant is stated, but his name was not known at the time of the incident and later, during the course of investigation, it is emerged that this appellant was the another assailant. The learned counsel submits that both accused Nos.1 and 2 have assaulted the deceased with iron rod and on account of the injuries sustained by the deceased, he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, there is material against this appellant also. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16772 CRL.A No. 401 of 2025 learned counsel submits that accused No.1 had approached this Court and this Court rejected the bail having considered the material on record and the same allegations are made against accused No.2 also and hence, he is not entitled for bail. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1 State submits that there is a clear overt- act allegation against this appellant and accused No.1. This Court also taken note of the material on record while considering the bail application of accused No.1 and overt-act allegation against both of them are similar. Hence, he is not entitled for bail. 6. Having heard the respective learned counsel, it is the specific case of the prosecution that accused No.1 was having illicit relationship with accused No.3, wife of the deceased. Accused No.2 is the friend of accused No.1 and both accused Nos.1 and 2 came in the motorcycle and assaulted the victim with iron rod. The statement of eye- witnesses i.e., C.W.2 and C.W.3 is clear that they have witnessed the incident of assault made by both accused Nos.1 and 2 with iron rod. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16772 CRL.A No. 401 of 2025 learned counsel for the appellant, the name of the appellant was not mentioned at the first instance. On perusal of the FIR, accused No.2 is mentioned as unknown. During the course of investigation only the name of this appellant came to light. The eye-witnesses have identified the assailants and when such being the material on record, the appellant is in custody for last two years cannot be a ground to enlarge him on bail. The Court has to take note of the severity of the offence and specific overt-act allegation against accused Nos.1 and 2 is similar and this Court has already rejected the bail petition of accused No.1 on merits. 7. Having considered the material available on record, accused No.2 took the life of a person who questioned the illicit relationship with his wife by accused No.1 by conspiring with each other and hence the offences under Sections 120B, 302, 114 read with 34 of IPC were invoked. The offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is also invoked against the appellant, since the victim belongs to a particular SC/ST community. Having taken note of direct evidence on record, the recovery is also made at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e., weapon used for committing the murder and FSL report is also positive regarding there were - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16772 CRL.A No. 401 of 2025 blood stains on the weapon which was seized. When such material is available on record, it is not a fit case for exercising discretion in favour of the appellant and hence no grounds are made out to enlarge the appellant on bail. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is given liberty to approach the Court after the examination of eye-witnesses C.W.2 and C.W.3. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28