- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17031 CRL.A No. 100688 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100688 OF 2025 (U/S 14 A(2) of SC and ST ACT) BETWEEN: 1. PARASHURAM S/O. BHEEMAPPA MAAGUNDI @ MAGUNDAPPANAVAR, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. KAMATAGI, TQ. HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. 2. HANAMANT S/O. RAMAPPA MASKI, AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. KAMATAGI, TQ. HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P.N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PSI AMENAGAD POLICE STATION, BAGALKOT, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH, DHARWAD-581100. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17031 CRL.A No. 100688 of 2025 2. RANGAPPA S/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA CHALAVADI, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. INJANAVAARI, TQ. GULEDAGUDDA, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14 A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27-10-2025 PASSED IN CRL. MISC. NO.476/2025 PASSED BY IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE BAGALKOTE AND RELEASE THE ACCUSED /APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 2 ON BAIL IN AMINAGAD PS CR.NO.128/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 115(2) 118(1), 126(2), 109(1) 352, 351(2) R/W 3(5) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS) 2023, AND 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(VA) OF SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITY) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17031 CRL.A No. 100688 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH) 1. The appellants are before this Court seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime No.128/2025 of respondent No.1/Police for the offence under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 109(1), 352, 351(2) r/w. Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20231 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 20152. Brief facts of the case; 2. The case of the prosecution is that, one Rangappa Chalavadi had lodged a complaint stating that he was working as a driver of TATA Goods vehicle and he was living on the earnings of the said profession. He used to transport the workers from one place to another place. On 05.10.2025 around about 9:00 AM, he took the coolie workers in his TATA Goods vehicle and dropped them near 1 For short ‘BNS, 2023’ 2 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17031 CRL.A No. 100688 of 2025 Shankrappa Handi’s land when he was coming back, he was restrained by accused Nos.1 and 2 and he was scolded that he should not take the employees of the village of which accused Nos.1 and 2 belong. 3. On the following day i.e., on 06.10.2025 around about 9:00 AM, the complainant took the workers to the land of Shankrappa and he was staying in the said land. Around about 2:00 PM, when he was sitting in his land, accused Nos.1 and 2 are stated to have picked up quarrel against him and assaulted him and caused injuries by stating that the complainant had shifted the workers from the village of accused Nos.1 and 2 in spite of repeated warning. After the incident, the complainant has lodged a complaint before the respondent No.1/Police. The respondent No.1/Police have registered a case for the offences stated supra. 4. Heard Sri. P.N.Hosamane, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Praveen Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17031 CRL.A No. 100688 of 2025 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that, the appellants are innocent of the alleged offences. They have no intention to commit the murder of the injured. In fact, the incident had occurred due to sudden provocation. The allegations levelled against the appellants are baseless and false. Therefore, the appellants may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State vehemently objected the bail application stating that, the appellants have committed heinous offence knowingly that the respondent No.2 belongs to Schedule Caste. The appellants had assaulted the respondent No.2 with iron rod and broke the right hand with an intention to commit his murder. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant bail to the appellants. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State prays to reject the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17031 CRL.A No. 100688 of 2025 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that the quarrel had ensued between the respondent No.2 and the appellants in respect of carrying the coolie workers to different lands. Though, it is alleged that, the appellants had assaulted the complainant, on perusal of the wound certificate and nature of injury caused to the complaint, without adverting to the merit of the case, I am of the considered opinion that, the appellants have made out a case to grant bail. 8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.128/2025 of respondent No.1/Police on executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each for the likesum to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17031 CRL.A No. 100688 of 2025 satisfaction of the Investigating Officer subject to following conditions; (a) The appellants shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court. (b) The appellants shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail. (c) The appellants shall co-operate with the investigation till filing of the charge-sheet. In case, if the appellants violate any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE PJ/CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21