Shrri Dandeppa S/O. Basavaraj Mahadi Alias Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2025 PASSED BY ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG AND RELEASE THE ACCUSED NO.1/APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL IN SPL. C.(SC/ST) NO.323/2024 (MUNDARGI P.S. CRIME NO.134/2024) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 115, 118, 78(1), 79, 351, 352, READ WITH 3(5) OF BNS AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) OF SCHEDULE CASTES AND THE SCHEDULE TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1987 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶19

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

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6836 CRL.A No. 100224 of 2025

¶22

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the accused No.1 praying to set aside the order dated 04.03.2025 passed in Spl.C.(SC/ST) No.323/2024 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, where under the bail application of appellant-accused No.1 sought in respect of Crime No.134/2024 of Mundaragi Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 109, 115, 118, 78(1), 79, 351 and 352 r/w. Section 3(5) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita [ hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’ for short ] and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of Schedule Caste and the Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1987 [ hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST Act’ for short ] came to be rejected.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the appellantaccused No.1, learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6836 CRL.A No. 100224 of 2025

¶27

respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that the

¶29

appellant-accused No.1 used to follow and tease the complainant who belongs to Schedule Caste. That on 14.07.2024 at 6:30 PM when complainant was cleaning the utensils in front of her house, at that time, accused No.1, who is the appellant herein was passing on the road had teased the complainant and threw a small stone, complainant told about the act of the appellant-accused No.1 to CW.8 to 13. When he was standing on Harogeri CC road, at that time, CW.8 asked the accused No.1 that why he is teasing the complainant and at that time, accused Nos.2 to 4 were with appellant-accused No.1 and

¶30

they abused the complainant by touching her caste in filthy words and the appellant-accused No.1 assaulted CWs.10 and 11 with a handle of axe and accused Nos.3

¶31

and 4 assaulted CWs.8 and 9 with a club. Accused No.4 assaulted CW.12 with stick [Dhoti] and pulled CWs.10 and

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6836 CRL.A No. 100224 of 2025

¶34

11 and committed the above said offences. Chargesheet has been filed against the appellant and others for the said offences. Wherein, the appellant-accused No.1 has been shown as absconding. The appellant-accused No.1 has voluntarily surrendered on 05.02.2025 and he had been sent to judicial custody. The appellant-accused No.1 had filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order.

¶35

Learned counsel for appellant-accused No.1 would contend that accused Nos.2 to 4 who are similarly placed with that of appellant-accused No.1 have already been granted bail. Considering the injuries sustained by CWs.10 and 11, it cannot be said that there was an attempt to commit the murder. Injuries sustained by CW.11 are simple except injury No.3 which is grievous in nature. The injuries sustained by CW.12 are simple except injury No.2 which is grievous in nature. As the chargesheet is filed, the appellant-accused No.1 is not required for further custodial interrogation. Without

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6836 CRL.A No. 100224 of 2025

¶37

considering all these aspects, the learned trial Judge has rejected the bail application by the impugned order. With this he prays to allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellant-accused No.1.

¶38

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contend that CWs.8 to 12 are the injured persons, among them CWs.10 and 11 have sustained grievous injuries. CWs.13 to 16 are the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. Accused No.1 absconded for nine [9] months. There is direct overt act alleged against the appellant-accused No.1, assaulting CWs.10 and 12 and causing grievous injuries. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶39

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2 would contend that the offence against the appellant-accused No.1 is a serious offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS. The appellant-accused No.1 remain absconded for seven [7] months and thereafter, voluntarily appeared in split up case. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6836 CRL.A No. 100224 of 2025

¶41

Having heard the learned counsels and the

¶42

learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has perused the impugned order and other chargesheet materials placed on record.

¶43

The accusation against the appellant-accused No.1 is that, he teased the complainant and when CWs.10 and 11 went along with CW.8 to ask regarding the same, appellant-accused No.1 abused them and assaulted CWs.10 and 11 with a handle of axe and caused simple and grievous injuries. On perusal of the wound certificate it is noticed that CW.11 has sustained two grievous injuries out of seven injuries and CW.10 has sustained one grievous injury out of four injuries. Further, accused No.2 assaulted CWs.10 and 11 with an intention to commit their murder is a matter of trial. Chargesheet is filed, appellantaccused No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation. Appellant-accused No.1 has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. In the result the following;

¶44

7 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6836 CRL.A No. 100224 of 2025

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. The appeal is allowed .

¶48

ii. Impugned order dated 04.03.2025 passed in Spl.C.(SC/ST) No.323/2024 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, is set aside . The appellant-accused No.1 is granted bail in Spl.C.(SC/ST) No.323/2024 [Crime No.134/2024 of Mundaragi Police Station] subject to following conditions;

¶49

a) The appellant-accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh] with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶50

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6836 CRL.A No. 100224 of 2025

¶51

b) The appellant-accused No.1 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses. c) The appellant/ accused No.1 shall appear before the Special Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and corporate for the speedy disposal of the case.

¶52

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶53

PJ CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Shrri Dandeppa S/O. Basavaraj Mahadi Alias v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrri Dandeppa S/O. Basavaraj Mahadi Alias 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 Sandeep S/O Dhulappa Gaddi Vs Shri. Vijayakumar S/O. Veerabhadrappa Munavalli

Shankar S/O Keshav Athani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sangeeta W/O Sadashiv Hegganaik Vs the State of Karnataka

Devaraj K Hadalgi Vs the State of Karnataka

Govind S/O Masti Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath S/O Timanna Hiremani Vs the State of Karnataka