- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37361 CRL.A No. 1251 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1251 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: MANJUNATHA R @ MANJU S/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT SHRIDHAR S RENT HOUSE ARUN ICE CREAM ROAD DOMBARAHALLI DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU 562 162 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ABHAY RAJIV SHIVAM, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU 560 001 Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37361 CRL.A No. 1251 of 2025 2. SRI OMKARPPA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO. 150 SANJEEVENI LAYOUT LAKSHMIPURA DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU 562 162. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M. HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.876/2025 DATED 17.05.2025 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.886/2022 (CR.NO.423/2022) OF MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37361 CRL.A No. 1251 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant, who is arraigned as accused No.3 in Crime No.423/2022 of the respondent – Police, is before this Court seeking regular bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’) and seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 17.05.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.876/2025 by the learned 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 a complaint came to be registered by the complainant against unknown persons for having seen the dead body found in the land belongs to one Bhaskar. Based on the complaint, a case came to be registered by the respondent - police. During investigation, it is disclosed that accused Nos. 1 to 5 in furtherance of common intention to kill the deceased who is the husband of C.W.2 on the pretext that the deceased had spoken - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37361 CRL.A No. 1251 of 2025 about the wife of accused No.2 with bad intention. The overtact against the appellant is that he has kicked on the head of the deceased and other accused have assaulted and killed the deceased. 3. Heard Sri Abhay Rajiv Shivam, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. The overtact attributed against the appellant is based on the voluntary statement of other accused. The overtact might be wrong or may not be wrong has to be ascertained during trial. Even assuming that the prosecution has made out a case against the appellant is true, the possibility of conviction is highly improbable. 5. It is further submitted that the material witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37361 CRL.A No. 1251 of 2025 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1– State opposed that the appellant is the one of the members of the unlawful assembly. As the overtact against him has been narrated in the charge sheet, it is not appropriate to enlarge the appellant on bail. Therefore, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court, it appears from the record that the entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. The overtact against the appellant herein and others had been attributed on the basis of voluntary statement of the other accused. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant bail by imposing suitable conditions. Moreover, some of the material witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. 8. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37361 CRL.A No. 1251 of 2025 ii) The impugned order dated 17.05.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.876/2025 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is set aside. iii) The appellant / accused No.3 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.423/2022 of respondent-police, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: a) The appellant shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the Court proceedings. b) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail. c) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court till disposal of the case. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS/-, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3