Shri. Vishal S/O. Suresh Natekar Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ATHANI P.S., TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 304, REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶16

RAJU S/O. PARASHURAM KAMBALE, RESIDENT OF SAMBARAGI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 232.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 – SERVED)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT 1989 (AMMENDEMENT 2015) READ WITH 483 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, PRAYING TO APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND THE TRIAL COURT ORDER DATED 14.02.2025 IN CRL. MISC. NO. 139/2025 TO BE SET ASIDE AND GRANT A BAIL

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6319 CRL.A No. 100116 of 2025

¶21

TO THE PETITIONER’S/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 3, IN CRIME NO.0009/2025, ATHANI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(2)(V) OF THE SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT) 1989 (AMENDED 2015) AND 109(1), 115(2), 118(2), 3(5), 352 OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE BEFORE THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI. (SPECIAL COURT TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by appellants –accused Nos.1 and 3 praying to set aside the order dated 14.02.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.139/2025 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi wherein bail petition of appellants –accused Nos.1 and 3 sought in respect of Crime No.9/2025 of Athani Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(2), 3(5), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS” for brevity) and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “SC and ST Act” for brevity) came to be rejected.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6319 CRL.A No. 100116 of 2025

¶27

Heard learned counsel for appellants –accused

¶28

Nos.1 and 3 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 –State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶29

On the complaint of respondent No.2, a case came to be registered against appellants –accused Nos.1 and 3 and another in Crime No.9/2025 of Athani Police Station for the aforesaid offences. Appellant No.1 came to be arrested on 06.01.2025 and appellant No.2 came to be arrested on 13.01.2025 and they are in judicial custody. Appellants –accused Nos.1 and 3 have filed bail petition and same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel for appellants –accused Nos.1 and 3 wound contend that there was no intention on the part of appellants to assault the injured –Suraj and the incident has taken place in sudden quarrel. The injured –

¶31

Suraj has sustained simple injuries and he has been discharged from hospital. As charge sheet is filed, these

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6319 CRL.A No. 100116 of 2025

¶33

appellants –accused Nos.1 and 3 are not required for custodial interrogation. He further submits that as per averments of the complaint, accused No.1 assaulted C.W.6 –Suraj with talawar on his head but as per statement of C.W.6 –Suraj, accused No.3 assaulted him with talawar on his head. There are material contradictions in that regard. Without considering all these aspects, learned Special Judge has rejected bail petitions of these appellants – accused Nos.1 and 3. With these, he prays to allow appeal and grant bail to appellants –accused Nos.1 and 3.

¶34

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 –State would contend that C.W.6 has sustained injury on his head. The injury on the head of C.W.6 has been caused by using talawar and it is deadly weapon. The said deadly weapon has been recovered under Mahazar. In the statement of C.W.6 –Suraj, he has stated that accused No.3 has assaulted with Talawar. Charge sheet materials shows prima facie case against appellants –accused Nos.1 and 3 for offences alleged

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6319 CRL.A No. 100116 of 2025

¶37

against them. With this, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶38

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

¶39

As per averments of the complaint in a quarrel, accused No.1 has assaulted the C.W.6 –Suraj with talawar on his head. On perusal of the statement of C.W.6 –Suraj, accused No.3 has assaulted with talawar on his head. There are material contradictions with regard to overtact of accused persons. The wound certificate indicates that C.W.6 –Suraj has sustained simple injury. As charge sheet is filed these appellants –accused Nos.1 and 3 are not required for custodial interrogation. Without considering all these aspects, learned Special Judge has erred in passing the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. Appellants –accused Nos.1 and 3 have made out grounds for setting aside impugned order and grant of bail with conditions.

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6319 CRL.A No. 100116 of 2025

¶41

In the result, the following

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. The appeal is allowed .

¶44

ii. The impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.139/2025 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi is set aside.

¶45

iii. Appellants -accused Nos.1 and 3 are granted bail in Crime No.9/2025 of Athani Police Station subject to the following conditions:

¶46

a) Appellants –accused Nos.1 and 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶47

7 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6319 CRL.A No. 100116 of 2025

¶49

b) Appellants –accused Nos.1 and 3 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶50

c) Appellants –accused Nos.1 and 3 shall appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶51

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶52

DSP CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Shri. Vishal S/O. Suresh Natekar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vishal S/O. Suresh Natekar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Shekharappa Shrigiri S/O Kalakappa Shrigiri Vs the State of Karnataka

Solomoonraj S/O Saimon Yamarti Vs the State of Karnataka

Mangala Shrikanth Sogi Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Sana S/O Ganesh Marathi Vs Sri Ujwal S/O Prakash Kakkerikar

Shri Mudakappa S/O Andappa Hadapada Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath Alias Manjunath Swami S v Vs the State of Karnataka