- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39312 CRL.A No. 1747 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1747 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A)(2)) BETWEEN: KARTHIK @ J K KARTHIK S/O JOTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT JANATHA COLONY KAVALAHOSAHLLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DIST – 562 106 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. UDAYA KUMAR N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANEKAL P.S. BANGALORE – 562 106 REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001 Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39312 CRL.A No. 1747 of 2025 2. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT WARD NO.22 BAHADDURPUR, ANEKAL TOWN ANEKAL – 562 106 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.RAGHAVENDRA H.V., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER IN SPL.C.NO.807/2024 DATED 13.08.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.250/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 189(2), 103(2), 191(2), 191(3), 61(2)(A) R/W SEC.190 OF BNS AND SEC.3(2)(V-A) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39312 CRL.A No. 1747 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant, who is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.250/2024 of the respondent – Police, is before this Court seeking regular bail and seeking to set aside the order dated 31.01.2025 passed in Spl.C.No.807/2024 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural district, Bengaluru. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the deceased Ravi is the son of C.W.1 and C.W.3 and he belongs to the Scheduled Caste. An immovable property of 2 acres 20 guntas situated in Sy.No.170 was granted to the ancestors of accused Nos.5, 6 and 8. The deceased Ravi had filed an application to the revenue authorities for grant of said land for graveyard. The said Ravi had also filed a complaint against accused Nos.6 and 8 in respect of some dispute existed between themselves. As such, accused Nos.5, 6 and 8 have decided to commit the murder of Ravi. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39312 CRL.A No. 1747 of 2025 3. It is further alleged that, in the meantime C.W.22 had also quarreled with many other accused on various reasons. All the accused have thought that Ravi might have instigated C.W.22 to quarrel with them, in furtherance of common intention, they decided to eliminate the Ravi. 4. Accordingly, on 24.07.2024, at about 07.30 p.m., the accused Nos.1 to 3 came in a car which had been driven by accused No.10. They came near the house of deceased Ravi and got down from the car. Accused Nos.1 to 3 went inside the house of Ravi and dragged him out of his house to the road. Accused No.2 is stated to have assaulted the deceased Ravi with a knife on 16 places on his body and caused severe bleeding injuries. 5. The deceased Ravi after having sustained injuries fell down on the ground. Then, the accused No.1 had assaulted the deceased Ravi with a long chopper. As a result of which, the deceased Ravi died on the spot. 6. It is further stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 fled away from the scene of occurrence. The respondent – Police - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39312 CRL.A No. 1747 of 2025 have conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 324(4), 189(2), 103(2), 191(2), 191(3), 61(2)(a) and 190 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Trial Court rejected the bail application. Hence, this appeal. 7. Heard Sri. Udaya Kumar N., learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 – State and Sri. Raghavendra H.V., learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 8. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is arrayed as accused No.3. The allegations made against him that he was holding deceased Ravi at the time of alleged murder stated to have been committed by accused No.1 and 2. However, the said overt-act has been explained in the charge-sheet on the strength of the statement of interested witnesses. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39312 CRL.A No. 1747 of 2025 9. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, vehemently, submitted that the act committed by the appellant would indicate the seriousness of the offence. As per the version of the eye-witnesses, the appellant and others entered inside the house of appellant and committed his murder on account of that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. The manner in which the accused had caused injuries would indicate that how they are cruel to the society. If the appellant is enlarged on bail, there might be chances of winning-over the witnesses or there may be chances of threatening the eye-witnesses. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant the relief. 10. Similarly, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, vehemently, emphasized the submission of learned High Court Government Pleader and adopted her argument and also prays to reject the bail. 11. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge-sheet, it would indicate that the appellant herein who is arrayed as accused No.3 as per the charge-sheet, was holding the deceased and facilitating the accused to commit murder. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39312 CRL.A No. 1747 of 2025 Admittedly, the said fact has been narrated by the so called eye-witnesses, they are stated to be the interested witnesses. Without adverting to the merit of the case, it appears that the appellant has made out a case to grant him bail. Hence, the appeal is required to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. ii) The order dated 31.01.2025 passed in Spl.C.No.807/2024 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is hereby, set aside. iii) The appellant/accused No.3 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.250/2024 of respondent-police, on executing a 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 Trial Court, subject to the following conditions: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39312 CRL.A No. 1747 of 2025 a. The appellant shall not commit any offences or similar offence in future till disposal of the case. b. The appellant shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the Court proceedings. c. The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates, without fail. d. The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court till disposal of the case. In case, if the appellant violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail. In view of the disposal of the appeal, interim application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6