Ramachandrappa. v Vs State of Karnataka

RAMACHANDRAPPA V. AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O VEERAPPA BYLAMARADHODDI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU – 560 083 CURRENTLY R/AT NO.351 5^TH MAIN ROAD 2^ND STAGE 3^RD BLOCK BASAVESHWARNAGARA BANGALORE KARNATAKA – 560 079

¶12

… APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI.AIYAPPA K.G., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THROUGH RAMANAGARA RURAL POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39421 CRL.A No. 1014 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001

¶20

CHANDU R. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O MR.RAMESH R/AT NAGALAPURA VILLAGE CHIKKENAHALLI DHAKLE KALIANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK KARNATAKA – 562 159 …RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.A.N.RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES / SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.192/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA FOUND AT ANNEXURE-F.

¶23

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 01.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:39421 CRL.A No. 1014 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CAV JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

¶30

The appellant has filed this appeal seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.192/2025 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara.

¶31

Factual matrix of the case:

¶32

It is stated that on 26.10.2024, the de facto complainant along with other victims namely, Punith and Likith, had visited the farmhouse around 08.00 p.m. to spend their Diwali vacation. On the said day, around 10.30 p.m., the accused had barged into the said farmhouse and threatened to take the videograph of the women who were swimming in the swimming pool. The accused hurled verbal and physical abuses, threatened the de facto complainant, victims, and other fellow members. When the de facto complainant and the victims resisted such foul abuses, the respondent No.2 proceeded to assault one of the victims, namely Likith, with the huge

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:39421 CRL.A No. 1014 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

stick. Consequently, his arm was broken. Further, the respondent No.2, in a fit of rage, proceeded to hit Mr. Punith with a stick on his head. As a result, the said Punith suffered head injury. The de facto complainant immediately dialled 100 i.e., Police helpline. The police arrived to the scene of occurrence, took the victims to the nearby hospital for treatment. Thereafter, Punith had succumbed to the injuries. Hence, a complaint came to be filed and FIR has been registered in Crime No.226/2024. After investigation, charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 103(1), 126(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS r/w Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’).

¶37

The accused persons were arrested and they were remanded to judicial custody on 28.10.2024. Subsequently, it was being extended from time to time based on the remand applications. However, the respondent No.1 - Police failed to appear and submit the remand application. Consequently, learned Sessions

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:39421 CRL.A No. 1014 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Judge did not extend the custody of the accused and released them on bail, as there was no remand application pending for consideration. The said order is impugned herein.

¶42

Heard Sri Aiyappa K.G., learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri A.N. Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court while granting bail has to consider the nature of accusations, severity of punishment and nature of the evidence in support of the accusations.

¶44

It is further submitted that, when there is a reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with or apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant, bail shall not be granted under such circumstances. Merely because, the application for remand has not been filed, that itself cannot be a ground to enlarge the accused on bail. In fact, the Court itself extended the

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39421 CRL.A No. 1014 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

custody by suo motu even without seeking for filing of the application for extension of remand. The custody of the accused shall be extended till statutory period for filing the final report is over. In a case where the final report is not filed within the stipulated period, either 60 days or 90 days, as stipulated under Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure, then, the Court has power to grant default bail to the detenue. Such being the fact, the Trial Court has committed an error in granting bail, by stating that the application for extension of custody had not been filed by the respondent - police. Therefore, the said order has to be set aside.

¶48

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the order of the Trial Court is appropriate and proper for the reason that, Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates the custody of the accused upto 14 days from the date of remand. Once such application is not filed, it deems that the custody of the accused is not required for any other purpose. As such,

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:39421 CRL.A No. 1014 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

the same has to be considered and immediately the

¶53

accused be released on bail.

¶54

It is further submitted that, the Act is specific in securing the personal life and liberty of the detenue, which is a valuable right available to the accused, who is in custody. Therefore, the order granting bail to the respondent No.2 suffers from no infirmity. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant required to be dismissed.

¶55

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and prays for allowing the appeal.

¶56

Having considered the rival submissions of the respective

¶57

parties, now, it is relevant to refer Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.), which reads as under.

¶58

167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.-

¶59

(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the

¶60

8 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:39421 CRL.A No. 1014 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the dairy hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.

¶64

(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:

¶65

Provided that, -

¶66

¹[(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,-

¶67

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death,

¶68

9 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:39421 CRL.A No. 1014 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;

¶72

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;]

¶73

[(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage:]

¶74

(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police.

¶75

Explanation I-For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:39421 CRL.A No. 1014 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail.]

¶80

Explanation II. If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under clause (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the medium of electronic video linkage, as the case may be.]

¶81

Provided further that in case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorised to be in the custody of a remand home or recognised social institution.]

¶82

(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, where a Judicial Magistrate is not available, transmit to the nearest Executive Magistrate, on whom the powers of a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate have been conferred, a copy of the entry in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall, at the same time, forward the accused to such Executive Magistrate, and thereupon such Executive Magistrate, may, for reasons to be

¶83

11 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:39421 CRL.A No. 1014 of 2025

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

recorded in writing, authorise the detention of the accused person in such custody as he may think fit for a term not exceeding seven days in the aggregate; and on the expiry of the period of detention so authorised, the accused person shall be released on bail except where an order for further detention of the accused person has been made by a Magistrate competent to make such order; and, where an order for such further detention is made, the period during which the accused person was detained in custody under the orders made by an Executive Magistrate under this sub-section, shall be taken into account in computing the period specified in paragraph (a) of the proviso to sub-section (2): Provided that before the expiry of the period aforesaid, the Executive Magistrate shall transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate the records of the case together with a copy of the entries in the dairy relating to the case which was transmitted to him by the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, as the case may be.]

¶87

(3) A Magistrate authorising under this section detention in the custody of the police shall record his reasons for so doing.

¶88

(4) Any Magistrate other than the Chief Judicial Magistrate making such order shall forward a copy of his order, with his reasons for making it, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶89

12 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:39421 CRL.A No. 1014 of 2025

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

(5) If in any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons-case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months from the date on which the accused was arrested, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interests of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary.

¶93

(6) Where any order stopping further investigation into an offence has been made under sub-section (5), the Sessions Judge may, if he is satisfied, on an application made to him or otherwise, that further investigation into the offence ought to be made, vacate the order made under sub-section (5) and direct further investigation to be made into the offence subject to such directions with regard to bail and other matters as he may specify.

¶94

A bare reading of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. would indicate that, whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, intimation about the accused is forwarded to the Magistrate, the Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time,

¶95

13 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:39421 CRL.A No. 1014 of 2025

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such the Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in whole. Further, it is provided that, the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of 15 days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but, no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody, under this paragraph, for a total period exceeding 90 days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. Sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence. No Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this Section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police. However, the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused, either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage.

¶99

14 -

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC:39421 CRL.A No. 1014 of 2025

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

Explanation also given, it would indicate that notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail.

¶103

12. Having read the above said provision, it makes it clear that the Magistrate is authorized to extend the custody regularly till filing of the charge sheet, with or without filing the application for seeking extension of custody by the respondent - police.

¶104

It is also necessary to refer the Judgment of the Patna High Court Full Bench in the case of Ramesh Kumar Ravi V/S State Of Bihar¹ held that “ Even in the absence of an application or request by Investigating officer seeking further remand, a magistrate can grant further remand of the accused under section 167 Cr.P.C”.

¶105

Having considered the manner in which the Trial Court considered the bail which is contrary to the provision, it is appropriate to set – aside the order.

¶106

In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶107

1 1987 CrLJ 1489

¶108

15 -

¶109

NC: 2025:KHC:39421 CRL.A No. 1014 of 2025

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

ORDER

¶112

i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

¶113

ii) The impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.192/2025 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, is set aside.

¶114

iii) The respondent No.1 - police is directed to take the accused No.1 / respondent No.2 into custody.

¶115

iv) Liberty is reserved to the respondent No.2 to file necessary application for regular bail before the Trial Court. If such application is made, the said application shall be considered expeditiously by the Trial Court.

¶116

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶117

BSS

¶118

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38

Ramachandrappa. v. Vs State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandrappa. v. Vs 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nelson Raj @ G J @ Jack Vs State by Banasawadi Ps

Sri Kariyappa Vs Smt. Surekha

Dr.Rakesh Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Shivannagowda S N Vs Sri Vairmudi

Syed Zammer Vs the State of Karnataka

Vasanthakumari Vs State by Therakanambi P S