- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15351 CRL.A No. 100655 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100655 OF 2025 (U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT) BETWEEN: 1. IRAPPA @ IRANNA SANGAPPA PAKANATTI S/O. SANGAPPA PAKANATTI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEAS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT: VIRESH NAGAR, GODACHI VILLAGE, TALUK. RAMDURGA, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591114. 2. MAHANTESH LAXMAN PAKANATTI S/O. LAXMAN PAKANATTI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT: HORATTI ONI, GODACHI VILLAGE, TALUK. RAMDURGA, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591114. 3. SHRI. SACHIN DANAPPA PAKANATTI S/O. DANAPPA PAKANATTI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT: HORATTI ONI, GODACHI VILLAGE, TALUK. RAMDURG, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591114. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. AVINASH M.ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KATKOL POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. 2. SHRI. VITTHAL LAXMAN NAIKAR S/O. LAXMAN NAIKAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, RESIDENT AT: GODACHI VILLAGE, TALUK. RAMDURG, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591114. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15351 CRL.A No. 100655 of 2025 3. IRANNA VITTHAL LAXMAN NAIKAR S/O. VITTHAL LAXMAN NAIKAR, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, RESIDENT AT: GODACHI VILLAGE, TALUK. RAMDURG, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591114. 4. LAXMAN MALLAPPA CHIPPALAKATTI S/O. MALLAPPA CHIPPALAKATTI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, RESIDENT AT: GODACHI VILLAGE, TALUK. RAMDURG, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SHIVAPRASAD J.JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI, THE EXCLUSIVE SPECIAL COURT (CONSTITUTED FOR OFFENCE TRIABLE UNDER OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989 AT BELAGAVI VIDE ORDER DATED 25.09.2025 PASSED IN CRL. MIS. PETITION NO.1043/2025 AGAINST THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.01, 04 AND 05 REGISTERED BY KATKOL POLICE STATION FIR IN CRIME NO.0094/2025 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 133, 352, 351(2) R/W 109 OF BNS- 2023 AND SECTIONS 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(VA) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15351 CRL.A No. 100655 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH) 1. The appellants are before this Court seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime No.94/2025 of respondent No.1/Police for the offence under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 133, 352, 351(2) r/w. Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20231 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 20152. Brief facts of the case; 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the appellants are belonging to Hindu-Lingayat community and the complainant belongs to Schedule Tribe. There was a dispute between the complainant and the appellants in respect of the path way of the land. It is alleged that, accused Nos.1 and 2 called the son of the complainant on the pretext of having some work and confined him in the 1 For short ‘BNS, 2023’ 2 For short ‘SC and ST (POA) Act’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15351 CRL.A No. 100655 of 2025 house of Ramesh Pakanatti. Further, the appellants also called Lakshmana through Iranna and confined both of them in the farmhouse and assaulted indiscriminately and caused injuries and also insulted both the injured by naming their caste. Hence, a complaint came to be registered against the appellants. 3. Heard Sri.Avinash M.Angadi, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and Sri.Shivaprasad J. Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, the appellants are arrayed as accused Nos.1, 4 and 5, they are innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case. 5. It is further submitted that the son of the complainant and his friend Lakshmana was following the minor daughter of Ramesh Pakanatti, teasing her and asked her to love him. In fact, the daughter of the said Ramesh - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15351 CRL.A No. 100655 of 2025 Pakanatti once had approached Police Station and narrated the incident. However, Police did not take any action. Later, the said Ramesh Pakanatti registered a case before the respondent No.1/Police, the same has been registered in Crime No.95/2025 for the offences punishable under Section 78(2), 79, 352, 351(1) r/w. Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 6. The appellants are the earning members of their respective families and they have been falsely implicated in this case and they will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of their release on bail. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prays to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State vehemently submitted that the appellants have brutally assaulted the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on account of that they belong to Schedule Tribe and caused injuries. The manner in which the respondents had been assaulted and narrated in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15351 CRL.A No. 100655 of 2025 complaint would indicate the seriousness of the offence. The appellants in order to undermine the present complaint, instigated Ramesh Pakanatti to register a false case against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 under the POCSO Act, 2012. 8. It is further submitted that, the appellants are very influential persons and powerful in the locality. If the appellants are enlarged on bail, there may be chances of threatening the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant them bail. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to reject the appeal. 9. Similarly, learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopted the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and prays to reject the appeal. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averment of the complaint, it appears from the record that, the appellants alleged to have assaulted the son of the complainant and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15351 CRL.A No. 100655 of 2025 also the friend of the son of the complainant namely Lakshmana and caused injuries on account of the issue relating to path way. However, a case has been registered against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 under the POCSO Act, 2012, alleging that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were teasing the daughter of Ramesh Pakanatti. In fact, no civil dispute is pending between the appellants and complainant in respect of the pathway. 11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, without mentioning the merits of the case, it is appropriate to grant bail as prayed for by imposing suitable conditions. 12. Hence, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.94/2025 of respondent No.1/Police on executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15351 CRL.A No. 100655 of 2025 one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court subject to following conditions; (a) The appellants shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court. (b) The appellants shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail. (c) The appellants shall not involve in any criminal cases till disposal of the case. In case, if the appellants violate any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE PJ, CT: UMD LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 43