- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16486 CRL.A No. 100707 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100707 OF 2025 (U/S 14 A(2) of SC and ST ACT) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI AMEET S/O. RAMESH PUJERI, AGE. 19 YEARS, R/O. INDIRA NAGAR, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102. 2. SHRI MAILARI S/O. LAXMAN MULAKUR, AGE. 18 YEARS, R/O. INDIRA NAGAR, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.SHARAD M.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH SHO BAILHONGAL POLICE STATION-591102. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16486 CRL.A No. 100707 of 2025 2. SHRI SANTOSH S/O. BABU MADIGAR, AGE. 32 YEARS, R/O. NAVALGATTI, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. TEJPAL S.KAMAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VK FILED IN COURT) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30/09/2025 PASSED IN CRL.MIS NO.001173/2025 BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, INSOFOR AS ACCUSED NO.7 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/10/2025 PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.001213/2025 BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, INSOFOR AS ACCUSED NO.4 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.4 AND 7 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.180/2025 REGISTERED BY BAILHONGAL POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 289(2), 191(2), 115(2), 115(1), 118(1) 118(2), 109(1), 352, 351(2) R/W 190 OF BNSS, 2023 AND 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(V), 3(2)(VA) OF SC/ST POA ACT 1989 AND PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES AMENDMENT ACT 2015. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16486 CRL.A No. 100707 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH) 1. The appellants-accused Nos.4 and 7 are before this Court seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime No.180/2025 of respondent No.1/Police for the offence punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 352 and 351(2) r/w. Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20231 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Amendment Act, 20152. Brief facts of the case; 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Santosh Babu Madigar and his friends namely Kumar Chandrayya Ganachari, Deepak Mallikarjun Bagenahalli, Rakesh Shrishail Angadi, Vinayak Basappa Shiginahalli and Sanket Bhopal Avaralli had been to Green 1 For short ‘ BNS, 2023’ 2 For short ‘SC and ST Act’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16486 CRL.A No. 100707 of 2025 Garden Hotel at Bailhongal for dinner. It is alleged that in the evening 7:30 PM, when the accused were present in the Green Garden Hotel, it is alleged that, one Satish Ulaveappa Totagi was arguing with the waiter. The appellants were asking the waiter as to why such argument was going on, the waiter replied that the accused had not paid the amount for which he had ordered. 3. It is further stated that, one Anil Totagi who were present in the Hotel came along with Mahesh Naganur and Ameet Pujeri, there was a quarrel between two groups. Each group had sustained reciprocal injuries. The case and counter case also lodged against each other. The case and counter case are pending before the same Police Station. After conducting the investigation, chare-sheet was filed in both the cases. 4. Heard Sri.Sharad M.Patil, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16486 CRL.A No. 100707 of 2025 Pleader for respondent No.1/State and Sri.Tejpal S.Kamal, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent of the alleged offences. They have been to have dinner. However, the appellants had also sustained injuries in the said incident. Though it is alleged that the appellants have committed offences punishable under Section 109(1) of BNS, 2023, the person who sustained injuries has been discharged from the Hospital. The other accused persons have been enlarged on bail. Hence, the parity may be given to the appellants. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently submitted that of course, there is a case and counter case between the parties. The injured sustained several injuries, it is stated in the complaint that the accused Nos.1 to 4 have assaulted injured and caused - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16486 CRL.A No. 100707 of 2025 several injuries. They had an intention to commit murder of the injured, however, he survived on obtaining timely treatment. Therefore, the appellants have committed heinous offence. Hence, they are not entitled for bail. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government pleader prays to reject the appeal. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and submitted that the appellants have committed heinous offences. Therefore, it is not appropriate to allow the bail, is his contention. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint and charge-sheet, it is alleged against the appellants that they have assaulted injured by using Jambe and caused injuries to him. However, as per the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the injured has been discharged form the Hospital and he is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16486 CRL.A No. 100707 of 2025 out of danger. On perusal of the further averments of the charge-sheet, this Court is of the opinion that the incident had occurred due to sudden provocation. Without adverting to the merit of the case, as it would effect the trial of the case, it is appropriate to grant them bail by imposing suitable conditions. 9. 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.180/2025 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 satisfaction of the Trial Court subject to the following conditions; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16486 CRL.A No. 100707 of 2025 (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 not involve in any criminal cases till disposal of the case. In case, if the appellants violates 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.: 10