- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9083 CRL.A No. 100344 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100344 OF 2025 (U/S. 14A(2) of SC & ST ACT) BETWEEN: NOORSAB S/O. AMINSAB NOORAPPANAVAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRAGUPPI VILLAGE, TALUKA-BILAGI, DISTRICT-BAGALKOTE-587116. …APPELLANT (BY SHRI SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH BILAGI POLICE STATION, DISTRICT- BAGALKOTE-580011. 2. RANGAPPA S/O. TULASAPPA DASAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRAGUPPI VILLAGE, TALUAKA-BILAGI, DISTRICT-BAGALKOTE-587116. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT 1989, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN SPECIAL CASE NO.49/2025 DATED 30.05.2025 DISMISSING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED BAIL APPLICATION IN CRIME NO.49/2025 OF BILAGI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 126(2), 109, 352, 351(3) OF BNS, 2023 AND SECTIONS 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(VA) OF THE SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9083 CRL.A No. 100344 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Kirtilata Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. 2. The appellant – accused has filed this appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, praying to set aside the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bagalkote in Special Case No.49/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 109, 352, 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the application filed by the appellant seeking regular bail has been rejected. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 20.03.2025 at about 07:30 p.m. the first informant and his son by name Muttanna @ Chandan Dasar aged 11 years - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9083 CRL.A No. 100344 of 2025 were proceeding on a motorcycle in moderate speed to supply milk from Shiraguppi to Kundargi Bhuvaneshwari Temple. As soon as first informant reached near Hanumanthdevar Temple at Shiraguppi, the appellant – accused suddenly came from the opposite direction and forcibly stopped the motorcycle of complainant and abused him in filthy language, intentionally insulted him to provoke his breach of peace and assaulted him with sickle on his palm. Hence, he sustained injury to his hand. He lodged a complaint, this led to registration of the FIR and investigation. During the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested and in turn he was remanded to judicial custody. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that, the complainant has lodged a false complaint against the appellant and the victim has sustained simple injury and he has already been discharged from the hospital. Thus, there is no danger to his life. The appellant is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9083 CRL.A No. 100344 of 2025 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State contended that the appellant has attempted to commit murder of the victim and there is prima facie case against him. If the appellant is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and may influence the victim and there is likelihood of he being fleeing away from justice. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. Perused the material available on record including First Information Report, complaint, charge sheet and other material. 7. On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the appellant – accused has assaulted the de facto complainant with sickle on his palm and caused injuries. From the wound certificate, it appears that the victim has sustained simple injury. He was admitted to the hospital on 20.03.2025 and was discharged from the hospital on 25.03.2025. It shows that the appellant is out of danger. 8. Having regard to the material available on record and considering the nature of allegations, gravity of offence, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9083 CRL.A No. 100344 of 2025 circumstances in which the offence is committed, position and status of the appellant with reference to the victim and witness, likelihood of fleeing away from justice, of repeating same offences by the appellant, of tampering with witness, character and antecedents of the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Criminal Appeal is allowed. The order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bagalkote in Special Case No.49/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 109, 352, 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby set aside. The appellant – accused is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.49/2025 registered by the respondent-Police subject to the following conditions: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9083 CRL.A No. 100344 of 2025 i. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. ii. The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. iii. The appellant shall not involve in any such offences in future. iv. The appellant shall not threaten the de facto complainant in any manner. Violation of any of the above conditions, will entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE Rsh /ct-an List no.: 2 sl no.: 48