Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 80883 (KAR)

STATE OF KARNATAKA v. THILAK RAJ

CRL.A/885/2022 · 2025-07-23

M G Uma

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27882 CRL.A No. 885 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 885 OF 2022 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BRAHMAVAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) AND: 1. THILAK RAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O SANJEEVA MASTER, R/AT "NESHARA" NEW MAHE GUEST HOUSE, KADIKE, BADANIDIYOOR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 574 118 2. NITHIN NAIK, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER, NAVEEN NAIK, R/AT, UDDALKA, HOSURU VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI - 574 118. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE CANCEL THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2021 PASSED IN CR.NO.22/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI GRANTING BAIL TO THE ACCUSED NO.6-RESPONDENT IN CR.NO.22/2021 OF BRAHAMAVARA Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27882 CRL.A No. 885 of 2022 POLICE STATION, UDUPI DISTRICT, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 112, 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 452, 302 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND HAVE TO CANCEL THE SAID ORDER OF BAIL. B. DIRECT THE ACCUSED NO.6 - RESPONDENT BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY. 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 appellant-State has preferred this appeal seeking cancellation of the order dated 18.03.2021 passed on the bail application filed in Crime No.22/2021 of Brahmavara Police Station, Udupi District, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, granting bail in favour of respondent No.1 - accused No.6. 2. Heard Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for the appellant-State. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the submission made by the learned Additional SPP, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27882 CRL.A No. 885 of 2022 “Whether the appellant-State has made out any grounds for cancellation of bail granted in favour of respondent No.1 - accused No.6?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 4. Respondent No.1 being accused No.6 had sought for grant of bail in Crime No.22/2021 of Brahmavara Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 112, 120B, 143, 147, 148, 452, 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the SC/ST Act’) by filing an application under Section 439 of Cr.PC. The said application came to be allowed vide order dated 18.03.2021, ordering to release the accused on bail, subject to conditions. 5. The State has preferred this appeal on 09.02.2022, seeking cancellation of the bail granted in favour of respondent No.1 - accused No.6 on the ground that, there are serious allegations against the accused in general and respondent No.1 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27882 CRL.A No. 885 of 2022 in particular for having brutally assaulted and killed the deceased and such facts were not taken into consideration by the Trial Court while granting bail. It is also contended that the investigation is not yet complete and therefore, respondent No.1 was not entitled for the grant of bail. 6. Even though the appeal was preferred on 09.02.2022, the same is pending consideration till date. By this time, investigation must have been completed and the charge sheet must have been filed. Even the trial before the Trial Court must have began. I do not find any reason to consider the appeal at this length of time i.e., after lapse of 3½ years for canceling the bail granted in favour of respondent No.1. 7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19