- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11158 CRL.A No. 1484 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1484 OF 2024 BETWEEN: BASAVARAJU @ B N RAMESH S/O. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT: 1010/H, 14TH CROSS, HEBBAL, MYSURU - 570 016, PERMANENT ADDRESS AT RAGIBOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 316. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAGADEESH C. M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY V. V. PURAM POLICE STATION, MYSURU - 570 002, REPRESENTED BY: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, STATE OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. MOHAN KUMAR S/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT: NO. 34, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, BANASHANKRI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 050. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1. R2 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT MYSURU IN SPL.C.NO.524/2023 DATED 29.05.2024 FOR THE OFFENCE Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11158 CRL.A No. 1484 of 2024 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(V) OF SC AND ST (POA) AMENDED ACT 2015 IN CR.NO.15/2023 OF V.V.PURAM POLICE STATION, MYSURU AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE HON’BLE COURTS DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERNECING AT DHARWAD BENCH, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the accused No.1 praying to set aside the order dated 29.05.2024 passed in Special Case No.524/2023 by the learned VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, whereunder the bail application of the appellant/accused No.1 in respect of Crime No.15/2023 of V.V. Puram Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC & ST Act’, for short) came to be rejected. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11158 CRL.A No. 1484 of 2024 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State. In spite of service of notice, Respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, the appellant– accused No.1 had intimacy with Sowmya and he had promised her that he will marry her and had physical contact with her. The appellant–accused No.1 came to know that Sowmya belongs to Scheduled Caste. Sowmya started insisting the appellant–accused No.1 to marry her and the family members of the appellant– accused No.1 insisted him to marry the daughter of his sister and therefore, in order to finish Sowmya, the appellant–accused No.1, on 15.04.2023 in between 11:30am and 12:30 Noon, assaulted the deceased with the spanner on her head and killed her. After the said incident, accused No.2 helped the appellant–accused No.1 by bolting, him, in a room and also bolting the house from outside and assisted him to escape from the clutches of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11158 CRL.A No. 1484 of 2024 law. Charge-sheet came to be filed against accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act and as against accused No.2 for the offence under Section 201 of IPC. 4. The appellant/accused No.1 had earlier filed Criminal Appeal No.1868/2023 challenging the rejection of his bail petition and the same came to be dismissed by judgment dated 12.02.2024 before this Court. Thereafter, the appellant/accused No.1 filed bail application before the trial Court and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order. The said order has been challenged by accused No.1 in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 would contend that, there was no motive for the appellant/accused No.1 to commit murder of Sowmya. The statement of Yogesh indicates that the deceased and accused No.1 went to Siddaganga Mutt on 13.04.2023 and there was Lingadharana to Sowmya on 14.04.2023 i.e., a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11158 CRL.A No. 1484 of 2024 day prior to the date of incident. The said aspect itself indicates that, there was no motive, as there was Lingadharana to the deceased. He further submits that, the clothes of the appellant, ceased, are found to be washed and there is no evidence indicating that the blood stains on the clothes of the appellant are the blood stains of the blood of the deceased. He further submits that the appellant is in judicial custody since 19.04.2023. He further submits that the mother of the appellant is unwell, bedridden and she is suffering from severe diabetes and his father is old aged and not having good health. Without considering these aspects, the learned trial Judge rejected the bail application of the appellant/accused No.1. With this he prayed for allowing the appeal and grant of bail to the appellant/accused No.1. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State would contend that earlier this Court considering prima facie motive and chargesheet has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/ accused No.1 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11158 CRL.A No. 1484 of 2024 challenging the rejection of his bail application. There are no new grounds made out for considering this successive application. CW.3 to CW.6 are the witnesses who have seen the appellant/accused No.1 with the deceased on the date of incident. The statement of CW.42-Yogesh does not indicate that the appellant/accused No.1 has married the deceased. The Doctor who conducted the Postmortem has opined that death is due to ‘head injury sustained’ as noted in the Postmortem Report. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned order and the other materials placed on record. 8. This appeal is filed by the appellant/ accused No.1 challenging the rejection of successive bail application by the trial Court. Earlier, the appellant/ accused No.1 has filed an appeal before this Court - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11158 CRL.A No. 1484 of 2024 challenging the rejection of his bail application and the same came to be dismissed. Wherein this Court has observed as under; “7. The deceased was a divorcee and this appellant No.1 – accused No.1 had an intimacy with her, which led to physical contact with her. Appellant No.1 – accused No.1 when insisted by the deceased to marry her, found that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and the family members of appellant No.1 – accused No.1 insisted him to marry daughter of his sister, therefore, there is a motive for appellant No.1 – accused No.1 to commit murder of the deceased Sowmya. There is recovery of banyan, shirt and spanner under the mahazar, at the instance of appellant No.1 – accused No.1. The said spanner, banyan and shirt are found to be of blood stained in the F.S.L report. The voluntary statement of appellant No.1 – accused No.1 corroborates all these aspects. On perusal of the entire charge sheet material, there is a prima facie case against appellant No.1 – accused No.1. Considering the said aspect, the learned District and Special Judge has rightly rejected his bail application.” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11158 CRL.A No. 1484 of 2024 9. As observed above, this Court considering the prima facie case has dismissed his appeal challenging the rejection of his bail application. Merely because, there was a Lingadharana of the deceased on 14.04.2023, one day prior to the date of the incident, at this stage, it cannot be said that there was no motive of the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased. As per the voluntary statement of appellant/ accused No.1, the family members of the appellant/ accused No.1 were insisted to marry the daughter of his sister. Therefore, there was a motive for the appellant/ accused No.1 to commit the murder of the deceased Sowmya. Merely because, the mother of the appellant/ accused No.1 is unwell and his father is old aged, not having good health and the appellant has to take care of him is not a ground for grant of bail, since the offence alleged against the appellant/ accused No.1 is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11158 CRL.A No. 1484 of 2024 10. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court has rightly rejected his bail application by the impugned order. There are no grounds made out for allowing of the appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE Kmv upto para 5 PJ from para 6 till end CT-ASC