- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30485 CRL.A No. 892 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 892 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A)(2)) BETWEEN: SRI KUMAR @ VAKALA S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT VADDERAHALLI KANAKAPURA ROAD BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU -562 117 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BIDADI POLICE STATION RAMANAGARA DISTRICT HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001 2. SMT. SHARADA W/O. KUMAR. V AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT.MUTHURAYANAGUDIPALYA VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRCT-562 159 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DT.24.08.2021 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAMANAGARA IN CRL.MISC.NO.583/2021 AND GRANT BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN CRIME NO.158/2021 REGISTERED BY BIDADI POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 302, 120(B) OF IPC, NOW CHARGE SHEET HAS BEEN FILED IN SPL.CASE.NO.69/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA FOR Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30485 CRL.A No. 892 of 2025 THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 148, 302, 120(B), 212, 149 OF IPC, UNDER SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST OF PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2015. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT The accused No.1/appellant has approached this Court seeking regular bail in Crime No.158/2021 of respondent – Police for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code. 2. The complainant lodges a complaint stating that she was staying along with her children at Vadderahalli village. She married Kumar V., who is a resident of Muthurayanagudipalya. The couple had four children out of which three are female and one male child. Her husband was working as a driver in BWSSB on contract basis and also he was the Member of Grama Panchayath, Bennikuppe village and he was also doing the real estate business. Recently, he had mediated as a broker in respect of immovable property measuring 15 acres. The accused No.1 had insisted him to arrange the commission or brokerage in the said transaction. 3. On 04.05.2021, around 7.45 A.M., the complainant’s husband went to his work on his motorcycle. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30485 CRL.A No. 892 of 2025 Around 8.15 A.M., she had received the information from the brother-in-law stating that her husband was killed by accused No.1 and others. Immediately, she rushed to the spot and she was informed that her husband was killed on account of ill-will in respect of commission of which he had recently mediated in selling the property. Therefore, she lodges a complaint against the accused Nos.1 and 2. The respondent – Police registered a case in Crime No.158/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 120(B) of I.P.C. after conducting the investigation submitted the charge-sheet. 4. The Trial Court rejected the bail application of the accused No.1 on the ground that he had applied the bail for the second time with challenging the circumstances. 5. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, vehemently justified in rejecting the application and stating that the accused No.1 being the prime accused had contended heinous offence against the person who is a weaker section in the society. If the appellant is enlarged on bail there is a likelihood of threatening the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, he is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. Having said thus, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to reject the bail. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30485 CRL.A No. 892 of 2025 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge-sheet, it appears from the record that entire case is based on respect of commission in which the deceased had mediated the land. The accused No.1 was stated to have demanded the commission in respect of the said transaction. 7. In the charge-sheet there are five eye-witnesses. These eye-witnesses are required to be examined during the trial. However, none of the eye-witnesses have neither lodged a complaint nor informed the Police immediately after the incident. Therefore, it is appropriate at this stage to grant bail without adverting the merits of the case. It is needless to say that the deceased was not killed on account that he belong to Scheduled Caste but it is for the reason that the deceased had not given the commission to accused No.1. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed. ii. The order dated24.08.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.No.583/2021 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, for the offences - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30485 CRL.A No. 892 of 2025 punishable under Section 302 and 120(B) of I.P.C, is hereby, set aside. iii. The appellant is enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety to the like sum of the satisfaction of the Trial Court. iv. The appellant shall not threaten the eye-witnesses or not other witnesses till disposal of the case. The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on every hearing dates without fail. v. The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court till disposal of the case. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13