- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7217 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100263 OF 2025 (U/S 14 A(2) of SC and ST ACT) BETWEEN: SHIVU @ SHIVANAND S/O. KALLAYYAJANGAM AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRL., R/O. NO.20/2, HONGEKARGALLI, GOJAGA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591128. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VITTHAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD THROUGH KAKATI POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI – 591113. 2. NAGAPPA BASAPPA KODLI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY, R/O. GANIKOPPA, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989 SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL AND ENLARGE TE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 ON BAIL IN KAKTI P.S. CR NO.53/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI (SPECIAL COURT TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT) FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 126(2), 118(2), 109, 132, 190 OF BNS ACT, 2023 AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST POA ACT, 1989, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.05.23 10:27:45 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7217 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed challenging the order rejecting the bail application filed by the petitioner, who is accused No.3 in Crime No. 53/2025 of Kakati Police Station. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi has dismissed the Crl.Misc.No.375/2025. 2. The appellant is accused No.3 in aforementioned Crime No.53/2025. It is alleged that on 10.03.2025, the petitioner, along with other accused being the members of the unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons with a common intention to commit murder, assaulted the complainant on the premise that the complainant had not issued the property extract to accused Nos.1 and 2. 3. Admittedly, the complainant is a Government employee. Based on the complaint filed by the victim, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7217 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2025 aforementioned criminal case was registered and present appellant was arrested on 13.03.2025. Five accused persons were named in the complaint and the bail petitions filed by two accused namely accused No.1 and 2 are allowed and the said accused were enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the alleged injuries sustained by the complainant/victim were simple in nature and Section 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) is not attracted. It is also his further submission that on the date of alleged incident, the appellant was not in Karnataka and he was in the office Sub-Registrar at Chandgad in Maharashtra State and to substantiate his contention he has produced the copy of the registered sale deed, wherein the presence of petitioner is shown at Chandgad in Maharashtra. Thus, he would contend that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7217 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2025 5. It is also his further submission that the appellant has not been convicted for any offences earlier. It is also his submission that he will co-operate with the investigation and abide by the terms and conditions in the event of his release on bail. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand would contend that the petitioner was very much involved in the commission of crime and three criminal cases are pending against the appellant of various offences said to have been committed by the appellant. Thus, he would contend that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, the appellant will hamper the investigation process likely to destroy the evidence. Thus, he would urge the learned Sessions Judge in dismissing the bail application filed by the petitioner. 7. This Court has considered the contentions raised by both sides and perused the records. According to the complaint lodged, the alleged incident took place on 10.03.2025 at 12.45 a.m. The registered sale deed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7217 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2025 produced by the petitioner would indicate that the sale deed is registered on 10.03.2025 at 7.35 p.m. It is stated that the office of Sub-Registrar, Chandgad is at distance of 40 kms from the place of alleged incident. Thus, this Court is not convinced that the appellant cannot be present at the time of alleged incident. Neverthless may be that is one of the circumstances which the trial Court may consider with other evidence. 8. However, what is required to the notice is the wound certificate produced by the prosecution would indicate that the injuries are simple in nature. It is also noticed that two persons out of five accused named in the complaint have already been enlarged on bail. 9. The State has not produced any material to prima facie conclude that the appellant is likely to hamper the investigation or destroy the evidence. The conflicting claims can be balanced by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7217 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2025 ORDER The appeal is allowed. The appellant/accused No.3 in Kakati Police Station Crime No.53/2025 on the file of Sessions, Judge, Belgavi is set-aside. The appellant is enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: i) The appellant/accused No.3 shall execute a self bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) to the satisfaction of the trial Court. ii) The appellant/accused No.3 shall also furnish two sureties for the likesum. iii) The appellant/accused No.3 shall mark his attendance before the police station twice in a week till the completion of investigation. iv) The appellant/accused No.3 shall co-operate with the investigation. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7217 CRL.A No. 100263 of 2025 v) The appellant/accused No.3 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner. vi) The appellant/accused No.3 shall not threat the complainant or any of witnesses and shall not destroy the evidence. vii) The appellant/accused No.3 shall not leave the Jurisdiction without prior permission till conclusion of the investigation. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE RHR/- CT:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3