Ameer S/O Abdul Gorekhan Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A(2) OF S.C./S.T. ACT, SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2025 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.122/2024 IN CRIME NO. 103/2024 SAVALAGI P.S. AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO’S. 3 AND 4 ON BAIL PENDING ON TH FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BAGALKOTE, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 115(2), 103(1), 352, 351(2), READ WITH 3(5) OF BNSS AND UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (P.O.A) AMENDMENT ACT 2015, INSOFAR APPELLANTs ARE CONCERNED ONLY AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 praying to set aside the order dated 06.01.2025 passed in Special Case No.122/2024 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, whereunder the bail application of the appellants sought in respect of Crime No.103/2024 of Savalagi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 103(1), 353, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’, for short) and Sections 3(1)(r),(s) and 3(2)

¶24

(v) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230 CRL.A No. 100036 of 2025

¶27

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC & ST Act’, for short) came to be rejected.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

¶29

The case of the prosecution as stated in para 17 of the charge-sheet is that, deceased Prahalad was residing alone and his wife-accused No.1 and their son accused No.2 were residing separately, as Prahalad was addicted to alcohol and he used to suspect the fidelity of his wife-accused No.1-Jayashree. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were residing along with other two children of accused No.2, separately, since one or two years in a rented house. Prahalad was residing alone in a old house in the town. The complainant is the brother of Prahalad and the Prahalad was upset with the fact of his wife and children residing separately and became more addicted to alcohol. The complainant thought of bringing the wife and children of the Prahalad and he had advised accused No.1-

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230 CRL.A No. 100036 of 2025

¶31

Jayashree, wife of the Prahalad, and there was no settlement. That on 19.09.2024 at about 2:30 pm, the complainant, Prahalad and CW-6 together went to the house of accused No.1 and asked her to come along with her children and she refused to join her husband and sent them back. On the same day, at about 3:30 pm, the Prahalad, complainant and CW-6 again along with the elders in order to unite the Prahalad and accused and as such when they were talking together, at that time accused Nos.1 to 4 came and accused No.2 threatened the

¶32

Prahalad to kill him and held his shirt and assaulted him with hands and other accused abused him in filthy language. All the accused together assaulted the Prahalad on his chest and stomach by hands and made him to fall on the ground and kicked him. They pressed his neck with an intention to kill him and when the complainant went to rescue him, at that time, accused Nos.2 and 3 abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with hands. At that time, CWs.6 to 8 rescued Prahalad and accused persons gave threat to them. Thereafter, Prahalad was taken to

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230 CRL.A No. 100036 of 2025

¶34

the hospital and he died on the same day at 5:30 pm. Charge-sheet has been filed against the appellants and accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences. The appellants are in judicial custody and they filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order. The said order has been challenged by the appellants in this appeal.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that, the alleged incident has taken place in a sudden quarrel, there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased, there is no preparation and no weapon has been used to assault the deceased and the allegation is of assault by hands and legs. He further submits that cause of death, as noted in opinion given by the Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, is ‘cerebral hemorrhage’. What caused cerebral hemorrhage has not been stated by the Doctor. Only 3 injures are noted in the postmortem report and out of them, two are contusions one on chest

¶36

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230 CRL.A No. 100036 of 2025

¶37

and the other on breast and there was swelling and abrasion on parietal region. No specific overt act is alleged against each of the accused. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said who assaulted the deceased on what part of his body. He submits that, there is no allegation of abuse by the appellants taking the caste of the deceased to attract the offence under Sections 3(1)(r),(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC and ST Act. The appellants are students aged 19 years and if they are continued in prison, it will affect their educational career. As charge-

¶38

sheet is filed, the appellants are not required for custodial interrogation. Without considering these aspects, the learned Special Judge has rejected the bail application of the appellants. With these he prayed for allowing the appeal and grant of bail to the appellants.

¶39

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 contend that the appellants/ accused Nos.3 and 4 kicked the deceased on his chest and on his private part in the day time at 3:00 pm. There are four accused and out of

¶40

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230 CRL.A No. 100036 of 2025

¶41

them, complainant is also injured and he has sustained simple injuries and if the appellants are granted bail, there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses.

¶42

Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the appellants kicked the deceased on his chest and on the private part. CW.6 to 8 are the witnesses to the alleged incident who has stated specifically the assault on the deceased with hands and legs. The Doctor who has conducted examination on the dead body of the deceased has noted three injuries on the deceased and opined that the death is due to ‘cerebral hemorrhage’. The charge sheet shows prima facie case against the accused for the offences alleged against them. If the appellants are granted bail, there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses. With these, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned order and the charge sheet.

¶44

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230 CRL.A No. 100036 of 2025

¶45

The appellants/ accused Nos.3 and 4 are the

¶46

friends of the accused No.2. Accused No.2 is a son of

¶47

deceased. Accused No.1 is the wife of the deceased. Accused Nos.1 and 2 and other two children of accused No.1 and deceased were residing separately since one or two years as the deceased was addicted to alcohol and he used to suspect the fidelity of his wife i.e., the accused No.1. CW.1-complainant is the brother of the deceased. Deceased was residing alone in a old house in the town and accused Nos.1 and 2 were residing in a rented house

¶48

in the plot area. CW.1 along with the deceased went to the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 and asked them to join the deceased and they refused. On the same day, CW.1 and deceased and other elders again secured accused Nos.1 and 2 for talks at that time, the alleged incident is stated to have taken place. That the assault alleged against the appellants/ accused Nos.3 and 4 is with hands and legs. Considering the said fact, there is no preparation and no weapon has been used by the appellants and others to assault the deceased. The alleged incident has taken place

¶49

9 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230 CRL.A No. 100036 of 2025

¶51

in a sudden quarrel between the accused No.2 and deceased. On perusal of the statement of eye-witness, no specific individual overt act is alleged against the accused persons. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said which of the accused persons assaulted on which part of the body of the deceased. More so, appellants are aged 19 years and they are students. If the appellants are continued in prison, it will affect their educational career. As the chargesheet is filed, the appellants are not required for custodial interrogation. The apprehension of the prosecution that if the appellants are granted bail, they will threaten the prosecution witnesses. The appellants have made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. In the result the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. The appeal is allowed .

¶54

ii. The impugned order dated 06.01.2025

¶55

passed in Spl.Case No.122/2024 by the

¶56

10 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4230 CRL.A No. 100036 of 2025

¶58

II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, is set aside.

¶59

iii. The appellants/ accused Nos.3 and 4 are granted bail in Crime No.103/2024 of Savalagi Police Station pending in Special Case No.122/2024 subject to the following conditions:

¶60

a) The appellants shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶61