- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10645 CRL.A No. 2150 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 2288 of 2024 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.2150 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2288 OF 2024 IN CRL.A No.2150/2024: BETWEEN: GOWTHAM R, S/O. RAVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT - CENTERING WORK R/AT C/O. BATTARA GOPALAPPA, RANGA ROAD SRINIVASAPURA TOWN AND TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 135. …APPELLANT (BY SRI S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY SRINIVASAPURA POLICE KOLAR DISTRICT RPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. AMARANATHA S., S/O. SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT. DAYANANDA ROAD SRINIVASAPURA TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10645 CRL.A No. 2150 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 2288 of 2024 3. DR. CHANDRAKALA W/O LATE SRINIVASAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS JAKIR HUSSAIN MOHALLA SRINIVASAPURA TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. ABHINAYA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.H.HANUMANTHARAYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR SPL.S.C.NO.3/2024 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.372/2023 OF SRINIVASAPURA POLICE STATION, KOLAR DISTRICT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 109, 212, 307, 302, 201 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST ACT 1986 AND ETC. IN CRL.A NO.2288/2024: BETWEEN: CHANDAN S., S/O SRINIVAS V, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS OCC: STUDENT R/AT JAGAJEEVANAPALYA SRINIVASAPURA TOWN AND TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10645 CRL.A No. 2150 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 2288 of 2024 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRINIVASAPURA POLICE KOLAR DISTRICT REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. AMARANATHA S, S/O SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT DAYANANDA ROAD SRINIVASAPURA TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135. 3. DR. CHANDRAKALA W/O LATE SRINIVASAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS JAKIR HUSSAIN MOHALLA SRINIVASAPURA TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. ABHINAYA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.H.HANUMANTHARAYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 NOTICE TO R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A19) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR SPL.S.C.NO.3/2024 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.372/2023 OF SRINIVASAPURA POLICE STATION, KOLAR DISTRICT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 109, 212, 307, 302, 201 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) 1986 AND ETC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10645 CRL.A No. 2150 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 2288 of 2024 THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in both the appeals. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant one Amarnatha S lodged a complaint alleging that on 23.10.2023 at about 12.15 p.m, when he along with one Srinivas, Krishna and a security guard were sitting under a mango tree having tea, at that time, six persons arrived in two motor bikes and among them, one person was holding a cement gunny bag and they came near Srinivas and one person gave shake hand saying uncle how are you, by then, another person sprayed some liquid on the face of Srinivas and all of a sudden, took the knife, long and talwar from the cement gunny bag and assaulted Srinivas all over his body. They also tried to assault complainant and other persons - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10645 CRL.A No. 2150 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 2288 of 2024 who were present at the spot. When the complainant shouted for help, all the persons ran away from the spot. The complainant called Manjunath and Pradeep over phone and he along with Krishna and Rajesh took the injured Srinivas to the Government hospital, Srinivasapura wherein the doctors advised to take him to Devaraj Urs Medical College, Kolar. At about 1.50, the doctors of Devaraj Urs Medical college hospital declared the death of Srinivas. Hence, case has been registered and the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against these appellants as well as other accused persons and these appellants are arrayed as accused Nos.8 and 5 respectively. 3. The counsel for the respective appellants would vehemently contend that offences invoked against the accused persons are Sections 120B, 109, 212, 307, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1986. The counsel would vehemently contend that these appellants are innocents and allegations made against these two appellants that though they were at the spot, there is no overt act allegation against them and the only allegation in the charge-sheet that they were watching at the time of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10645 CRL.A No. 2150 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 2288 of 2024 incident. The counsel also would vehemently contend that accused No.8 is arrested on 30.10.2023 and accused No.5 is arrested on 27.10.2023 and the counsel also would vehemently contend that even eye-witnesses statement was recorded by the investigating officer and eye-witnesses also not spoken anything about the overt acts against these two appellants and investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed and hence, continuing these appellants in custody is not needed. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 contend that there were 31 injuries on the body of the deceased and there is a recovery at the instance of these appellants i.e., the mobile and two wheeler. Learned counsel would contend that when both of them have given consent and not subjected for Polygraph test, learned counsel would contend that 164 statement of the witnesses were recorded and specifically stated that all of them were there at the spot and they came along with deadly weapons in a two wheeler and he was chased and he escaped from the clutches of the appellants and inflicted injuries with the deadly weapons on the said Srinivas and he escaped from the spot jumping the compound. Immediately, they called Punith and Ananth and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10645 CRL.A No. 2150 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 2288 of 2024 after arrival of those persons, when they went to spot, he had sustained injuries, immediately he was taken to hospital and 164 statement is also evident with regard to the presence of these appellants. Hence, not entitled for bail. 5. Learned Additional SPP for the respondent No.1- State in his argument would vehemently contend that Court has to take note of nature of injuries sustained by the victim and also brought to notice of this Court PM report which depicts 31 injuries which are caused using talwar and deadly weapons and cause of death is also on account of multiple injuries sustained. Hence, they are not entitled for bail. He also brought to notice of this Court that very C.W.1 made specific averment in the complaint itself that these two appellants came along with other accused persons in two wheeler and removed deadly weapons from the gunny bag and inflicted injuries and detailed complaint was given which runs about pages and voluntary statement given by the accused is very clear with regard to committing of murder and recovery is also made at the instance of other accused and two wheeler and mobile was - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10645 CRL.A No. 2150 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 2288 of 2024 seized at the instance of these appellants. Hence, not entitled for bail. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned HCGP for the respondent No.1-State as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3 and also objection statement filed by respondent No.3 before this Court, incident has taken place on 23.10.2023 at about 12.15 p.m. The specific case of the prosecution is that when the complainant was there along with Srinivas, Krishna and a security guard and all of them were sitting under a mango tree, these appellants came along with other accused in a two wheeler and sprayed some liquid on the face of Srinivas and all of a sudden, removed knife, long and talwar from the cement gunny bag and assaulted Srinivas. Having perused column No.17 of the charge-sheet also, specific allegation is made against these accused persons that at the time of inflicting injuries with deadly weapons i.e., knife and talwar, accused Nos.5 and 8 came along with accused persons and at that time, C.Ws.1, 2 and 3, who are eye witnesses to the incident were present and accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 inflicted injuries. At that time, these accused persons were guarding the other accused persons to inflict injuries and so also, very same - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10645 CRL.A No. 2150 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 2288 of 2024 allegation is made against accused No.5 and the very presence of these accused person is spoken by C.Ws.1 to 3 and also 164 statement was recorded before the learned Magistrate and they have reiterated the presence of the accused persons. 7. No doubt, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that there is no overt act allegation against these appellants, but the direct evidence before the Court is that these accused persons came in a two wheeler and all of a sudden, removed the deadly weapons and assaulted Srinivas and there is a recovery of motorcycle and mobile which belongs to them. When such recovery is made and these two appellants were present at the time of incident and evidence of the eye witnesses was also recorded and allegation is that they conspired with each other and came with deadly weapon and inflicted injury. When such offences are invoked and PM report also clearly disclose that death is due to multiple injury sustained and there were 31 stab injuries and barbaric act was done, this Court at this stage cannot segregate the intention of each of the accused, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in KUMER SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER reported n (2021) 6 SCJ 227. Hence, when such - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10645 CRL.A No. 2150 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 2288 of 2024 material is available before the Court, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellants and it is not a case for granting bail in favour of the appellants. Accordingly, the appeals are rejected. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN/ST