- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27310 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1216 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. LEPAKSHI, S/O CHANNAKESHAVA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, MOTOR WELDING WORK BY OCCUPATION, R/O YEMMEDODDI VILLAGE, DODDERI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577301 2. SRI. ABHI @ ABHISHEK, S/O SHANMUKHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: "D" GROUP SERVANT IN MORARJI DESAI SCHOOL, R/O YEMMEDODDI VILLAGE, DODDERI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301 3. SRI. ATHEESHA, S/O SHANMUKHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST BY OCCUPATION, R/O YEMMEDODDI VILLAGE, DODDERI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301 4. SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA, S/O LATE SOMALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST BY OCCUPATION, R/O YEMMEDODDI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27310 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2025 DODDERI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KARTHIK SURYAPRAKASH TAYUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY RURAL POLICE STATION, BHADRAVATHI, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 001 2. SMT. VEDAVATHI, W/O LATE SHANTHAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE BY OCCUPATION, R/O DODDERI VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.03.2025 PASSED BY THE 4TH ADDL.DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI IN SPL.C 5011/2025 (PREVIOUSLY CR.NO.5004/2025) ARISING FROM CR.NO.0014/2025 (CHARGE SHEET NO.41/2025) OF OLD TOWN P.S FOR THE O/P/U/S 351(2), 352, 103(1) R/W SEC. 3(5) OF THE BNS, 2023 AND SEC.3 (1)(R) (S), 3 (2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, AND SEC. 3 AND 25 OF ARMS ACT, 1959, REJECTING THE APPLICATION U/S 483 BNSS FOR BAIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27310 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2025 SOUGHT BY THE APPELLANTS. 2. ENLARGING THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL IN SPL.C 5011/2025 (PREVIOUSLY CR.NO.5004/2025) ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDL.DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.0014/2025 (CHARGE SHEET NO.41/2025) OF RURAL POLICE STATION, BHADRAVATHI FOR THE O/P/U/S 351(2), 352, 103(1) R/W SEC. 3(5) OF THE BNS, 2023 AND SECTIONS 126(2) AND SEC. 55 OF THE BNS, 2023 AND SEC.3 (1)(R) (S), 3 (2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, AND SEC. 3 AND 25 OF ARMS ACT, 1959. THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants -accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST (POA) Act’ for short) in Crime No.5004/2025 of Bhadravathi Rural Police Station, pending in Spl.Case.No.5011/2025 before the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Bhadravathi registered for the offences punishable under Sections 351(2), 352, 103(1) R/w Section 3(5), Sections - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27310 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2025 126(2) and Section 55 of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Sections 3(1)(r), (s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Sections 3 and 25 (1)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Smt. Vedavati. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Cr.No.14/2025 was registered against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 351(2), 352, 103(1) R/w Section 3(5), Sections 126(2) and Section 55 of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), (s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Sections 3 and 25 (1)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959. It is stated that there were two rival groups on the date of incident. Initially, there was quarrel between the two groups. Later, in the second incident, it was accused No.1, who instigated accused Nos.2 and 3 to cause the death of deceased. Accordingly, accused Nos.2 and 3 came armed with long and assaulted the deceased indiscriminately. As a result of which, he sustained multiple injuries and died. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.4 was also present at the scene of occurrence and he also participated in commission of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27310 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2025 the offence. Therefore, it is stated that they have committed the offence as alleged. After completing the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. Now the matter is pending in Special Case No.5011/2025 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Bhadravathi. Hence, the appellants are before this court seeking grant of bail. 3. Heard Sri.Karthik Suryaprakash Tayur, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record. 4. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?” My answer to the above point is ‘Partly in the Affirmative’ for the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27310 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2025 R E A S O N S 5. It is the contention of the prosecution that there were two groups, who were quarreling with one another very frequently. On the date of incident, there was a first incident where there was a quarrel, later again on the same day, ie., 22.01.2025 at 8.45 pm., the deceased Shanthakumar was proceeding towards his Arecanut garden on his motor cycle. Accused Nos.1 to 4 came near the electric transformer and waylaid him. The accused have abused him in filthy language referring to the caste, as he belongs to scheduled caste, and assaulted him with hands. Accused Nos.2 and 3, who were armed with long, instigated by accused No.1 assaulted the deceased and caused fatal injuries. In the meantime, CWs.1, 6, 9 and 11 came to the spot and shifted him to the hospital. But on his way to the hospital, the deceased Shanthakumar breathed his last. 6. The prosecution has cited as many as 54 witnesses, out of them seven are eye witnesses. The statements of four witnesses were recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 183 of BNSS. These witnesses have referred to the overt act committed by accused Nos.2 and 3 that they were - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27310 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2025 armed with longs and assaulted the deceased. It was accused No.1, who is the main accused, who said to have the motive and instigated accused Nos.2 and 3 to cause the death of the deceased. 7. It is stated that the wife of accused No.1 is the Member of the Village Panchayath. Taking advantage of that position, accused No.1 was involved in illegal activities. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were his henchmen. Since they suspected that deceased Shanthakumar informed the ill-deeds of accused Nos.1 to 3 to the Panchayath officials, they were having ill-will against him, which led to the incident and death of deceased. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that a counter complaint is filed by wife of accused No.1, which is registered in Cr.No.15/2025. Obviously, the same was subsequent to the registration of FIR in the present case. Learned counsel also contended that, accused Nos.1 to 3 have also sustained injuries in the incident and accused No.2 has sustained fracture of his facial bone and all the accused have taken treatment in the hospital. Absolutely, no materials are placed before the Court to substantiate such contention except the police intimation given by the private hospital regarding the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27310 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2025 fact that accused Nos.1 to 3 have approached the hospital with a history of assault. There is no mention regarding sustaining of any injury by accused Nos.1 to 3. Under such circumstances, the police intimation or registration of the counter complaint by the wife of the accused will not come to the rescue of accused Nos.1 to 3, when serious allegations are made against them. 9. The postmortem report pertaining to the deceased Shanthakumar discloses that he sustained as many as 12 injuries, which include abrasions, lacerations, chopped wound, stabbed wound, contusion and incised wound. Admittedly, the longs used in the commission of offence were recovered at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion, that accused Nos.1 to 3 are not entitled for grant of bail. 10. The allegations against accused No.4 is not as serious as made against accused Nos.1 to 3. Ofcourse, consistently the witnesses say that he was also present at the scene of occurrence, but admittedly, he has not done any overt act in causing the fatal injuries or causing death of the deceased. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that accused No.4 may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27310 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2025 11. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that accused Nos.1 to 4 are having criminal antecedents as accused Nos.1 to 3 are having five other cases, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 etc and accused No.4 is having three other cases. An opinion is already formed that accused Nos.1 to 3 are not entitled for grant of bail, on seriousness of the offence and materials placed before this Court in the present case. 12. Even though accused No.4 is having three other criminal cases registered against him, I am of the opinion that looking into the nature of the allegations made against him, he may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution as well as interest of the complainant and the witnesses. It is made clear that if accused No.4 involves in any other criminal case, the bail granted in his favour is liable to be cancelled. 13. Accordingly, I answer the above point partly in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal preferred by accused Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27310 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2025 The appeal preferred by accused No.4 is allowed. The appellant/accused No.4 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.5004/2025 of Bhadravathi Rural Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: a). The appellant/accused No.4 shall not commit similar offences. b). The appellant/accused No.4 shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c). The appellant/accused No.4 shall appear before the Court as and when required. If in case, the appellant violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail. On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the appellant and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27310 CRL.A No. 1216 of 2025 Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the appellant on bail. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35