- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34551 CRL.A No. 683 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 683 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: SRI. VINAY PRASHANTH ALIAS VINAY S/O KESHAVA REDDY AGED 30 YEARS R/AT NARAYANAPURA WARD NO.22, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 135. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION ANEKAL SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING DR BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. SRI.S.MUNIRAJU S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34551 CRL.A No. 683 of 2025 AGED MAJOR R/AT WARD NO.22 BAHADDURUPUR ANEKAL TOWN ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.M.SATHISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) --- THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 31.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, THEREBY REJECTING THE BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED HEREIN U/S 483 OF BNSS, 2023, IN THE CASE OF SPL.C.NO.807/2024 OF THE 1st RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR.NO.250/2024, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324(4), 189(2), 103(2), 191(2), 191(3), 61(2)(a), 190 OF BNS, 2023, UNDER SECTION 3(2)(va) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34551 CRL.A No. 683 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant, who is arraigned as accused No.2 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 by the 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. As such, accused Nos.5, 6 and 8 decided to commit the murder of Ravi. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34551 CRL.A No. 683 of 2025 3. It is further alleged that C.W.22, who is the friend of the deceased Ravi, had quarreled near the house of accused Nos.1 and 4 and damaged the door of the house of accused No.4. Further, C.W.22 had quarreled with accused No.7 when he was distributing the books near Bharathi School at Anekal Town. Accused Nos.1, 4 and 7 thought that the deceased Ravi was supporting C.W.22. 4. On 24.07.2024, at about 07.30 p.m., the accused Nos.1 to 3 came in a car which was driven by accused No.10. They came near the house of deceased Ravi and got down from the car. Accused Nos.1 to 3 dragged the deceased Ravi out of his house to the road in front of his house. Accused No.2 assaulted the deceased Ravi with a knife on 16 places on his body, causing severe bleeding injuries. When deceased Ravi fell down, the accused No.1 had assaulted the deceased Ravi with a long chopper, as a result of which, the deceased Ravi died at the spot. Accused Nos.1 to 3 fled away from the scene of occurrence. The respondent – Police have conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 324(4), 189(2), - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34551 CRL.A No. 683 of 2025 103(2), 191(2), 191(3), 61(2)(a) and 190 of BNS 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. 5. Heard Sri. Prasanna Kumar P., learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 – State and Sri M. Sathisha, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that, though the prosecution has projected that the mother of the deceased is the eyewitness to the incident, the fact remains that, her statement did not indicate that she was the eyewitness to the incident. C.W.2 – C. Rajappa stated to be the eyewitness to the incident, however, in the complaint, the name of said C. Rajappa did not find a place. Even mother of the deceased, in her statement made before the police, did not mention the name of C.W.1. Such being the fact, it is not appropriate to keep the appellant in judicial custody. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34551 CRL.A No. 683 of 2025 suitable conditions. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 - State vehemently opposed the said submissions. She further submitted that the manner in which the appellant had stabbed the deceased would indicate that it was a gruesome murder that had occurred in front of the house of the deceased, in the presence of the mother of the deceased. Such being the case, if the appellant is enlarged on bail, certainly, there would be a likelihood of threatening of not only prosecution witnesses, but also terrorizing the entire locality. Therefore, it is not proper to grant him bail. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays for rejection of the appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 adopted the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and submits that the appellant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. 9. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned for the respective parties, it appears from the record that there - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34551 CRL.A No. 683 of 2025 was a rivalry between the deceased and the appellant and others. The deceased had lodged a complaint against accused Nos.1 to 3. The said complaint had ended in filing NCR. The deceased and C.W.22 were interfering in the matter of accused Nos.1 to 10, in one or the other way. The deceased was a member of the panchayath. The allegations made against the appellant and others are that, the appellant and others namely accused Nos.1 to 3, along with accused No.10, went to the house of the deceased and pulled him out of the house and stabbed him and killed him. 10. Though it appears from the record that, C.W.1 and C.W.2 are the eyewitnesses to the incident, the fact remains that the name of C.W.2 does not find a place in the statement of C.W.1. Hence, the fact of committing murder by the appellant, by stabbing 16 times on the body of the deceased, for the purpose of considering the bail, cannot be accepted. Hence, it is proper to allow the appeal, by imposing suitable conditions: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34551 CRL.A No. 683 of 2025 11. In the light of the observation made above, 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 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is set aside. iii) The appellant / accused No.2 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 likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions: a) The appellant shall not commit any similar criminal offence. b) The appellant shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the Court proceedings. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34551 CRL.A No. 683 of 2025 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 Bss List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11