- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11101 CRL.A No.2347 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2347 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. DARSHAN @ DARSHANGOWDA M.K. S/O KUSHAL, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT. MALAGALU VILLAGE, MARASANDRA BEEDHI, KANAKAPURA TOWN AND TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562117. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANAND GANESH M, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. USHA DEVI K.G. ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KANAKAPURA TOWN P.S., NOW REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001. 2. GOVINDARAJU, S/O LATE VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 3. ANISHKUMAR, S/O VYRAMUDI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 4. LAKSHMANA, S/O LATE VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11101 CRL.A No.2347 of 2024 5. LATHA, D/O CHALUVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS. 6. THEJASWINI, D/O LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. 7. CHAITANYA, S/O GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS. 8. SMT. MADHU, W/O GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT. SIDDAPPAJI TEMPLE ROAD, MALAGALU, KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562117. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. AVANI CHOKSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R8) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT DATED 08.11.2024 IN CRL.MISC.NO.860/2024 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAMANAGARA, ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPL.CASE (SC/ST) NO.142/2024 PENDING BEFORE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 76, 109(1), 329(4), 61(2), 54, 324(4) R/W 190 OF BNS 2023 AND SEC.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT ARISED OUT OF CR.NO.112/2024 BY KANAKAPURA TOWN P.S. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11101 CRL.A No.2347 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State and the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent Nos.2 to 8. 2. The case of the prosecution against this appellant, who has been arrayed as accused No.7, is that he was very much present at the time of the incident and he pulled the cloth of C.W.5 and kicked. The allegation against accused No.1 is that he inflicted injury with long on C.W.2. As a result, when C.W.2 tried to ward off the said blow, put across the left hand, as a result, his left hand was amputated and when C.W.2 tried to escape from the spot, he was chased and inflicted injury and with an intention to take away the life of C.W.1 and C.W.3, accused No.5 also inflicted injury on C.W.2 with long on his head. Accused No.3 also assaulted C.W.1 with the long and specific overt-act allegations are made against accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 that they inflicted injury on C.W.1 to C.W.3. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the friend of accused No.1 and hence he has - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11101 CRL.A No.2347 of 2024 been falsely implicated in the case. The learned counsel contend that except he pulled the cloth of C.W.5 and kicked, no other allegation is made against the appellant and the said allegation is made only to implicate this appellant as an accused. This appellant is in custody from 24.07.2024 and the presence of this appellant is not required since investigation has been completed and omnibus allegation is made to attract Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (‘SC/ST Act’ for short) and hence the said offence also not comes in the way of granting bail in favour of the appellant. 4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State would contend that attack was made with deadly weapon long and C.W.1 to C.W.3 have sustained injuries and there are grievous injuries. The Court has to take note of the common object that all of them gathered and went near the house of the complainants and inflicted injury and though this appellant has not inflicted injury with any deadly weapon, but he has shared the common object and hence he is not entitled for bail. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11101 CRL.A No.2347 of 2024 5. The learned counsel for the complainants/respondent Nos.2 to 8 would contend that the Court has to take note of the very presence of this appellant along with unlawful assembly and causing of grievous injury. The learned counsel contend that there was an amputation of the left hand of C.W.2 and the Court has to take note of the common object in inflicting injury and hence the appellant is not entitled for bail. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 State and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 8, the specific overt-act allegation made against this appellant is that he pulled the cloth of C.W.5 and kicked. No doubt, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses C.W.4 to C.W.10 and C.W.5 also speaks about the overt-act of this appellant. Taking note of the overt-act allegation that he pulled the cloth and kicked and he had not used any deadly weapon in causing any injury to C.W.5 and no wound certificate is placed on record to show C.W.5 sustained injury, hence, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant/accused No.7 by imposing certain conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11101 CRL.A No.2347 of 2024 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal appeal is allowed. (ii) The appellant is granted bail subject to the appellant executing his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (iii) The appellant shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iv) The appellant shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (v) 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 MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33