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

NELSON RAJ @ G J @ JACK S/O SAGAY DEVKUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT ON. 16 1ST CROSS VIVEKANANDA NAGARA JAI BHAERATH NAGARA MS NAGARA POST BANGALORE 560 033

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. RAVIKUMARA B R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY BANASAWADI PS REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING 560 001

¶15

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE RAJU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:36739 CRL.A No. 1325 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

R/AT C/O SMT PUSHPAMMA 7TH CROSS CHALLAGHATTA MURGESH PALYA ROAD BANGALORE 560 017

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.PUSHPALATHA B. ADDL. SPP FOR R1;

¶22

R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.05.2025 PASSED IN SPL.CC NO.1752/2021 BY THE HONBLE COURT OF LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-71) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY GRANTING BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN CR NO.337/2021(NOW NUMBERED AS SPL.CC.NO.1752/2021) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 120(B) AND 149 OF IPC R/W 3(2)(v) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT OF BANASWADI POLICE STATION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:36739 CRL.A No. 1325 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

The appellant who is arraigned as accused No.2 in Crime No.337/2021 of the respondent - Police is before this Court, seeking regular bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’) and seeking to set aside the order dated 17.05.2025 passed in Spl.C.No.1752/2021 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru.

¶31

Factual matrix of the case:

¶32

The case of the prosecution is that, the son of the complainant had quarreled with his friend, namely, Rakshit and a case was registered against him at Banaswadi Police Station. Further, in the year 2018, the deceased and another son of the complainant, namely, Mahesh were arrested and sent to judicial custody in a case of assault. Therefore, the complainant vacated the

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:36739 CRL.A No. 1325 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Banaswadi house. The deceased after having released on bail, he was residing with the complainant. In the meantime, he eloped with a girl and married her. In that connection, a complaint was lodged by the father of the victim at Jeevanbheema Nagara Police Station. Later, it was closed.

¶37

The deceased was living along with his wife at Bannerghatta, thereafter, he vacated the house and started residing at Nagasandra. On 28.07.2021, the complainant and her daughter, the deceased Harish and his friend had been to Banaswadi Police Station in an auto rickshaw. The complainant and C.W.2 were having breakfast in the food cart. In the meantime, C.W.3 came running and informed her that deceased Harish was attacked by Rakshit and others. The complainant after having witnessed the incident, lodged a complaint before the respondent - police. The respondent - police after having conducted the investigation, submitted the charge sheet .

¶38

Heard Sri Ravikumara B.R., learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Pushpalatha B., learned Addl. SPP for

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:36739 CRL.A No. 1325 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the respondent No.1 – State. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.

¶43

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the eyewitnesses, namely, PWs.1 and 2 have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.

¶44

Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 - State vehemently opposed the said submissions and she further submitted that the appellant herein had won over the witnesses. One more eyewitness has to be examined. At this stage, it is not appropriate to grant bail. Having said thus, the learned Addl. SPP prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶45

Having heard the learned for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the record that CWs.1 to 3 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. CWs.1 and 2 have been examined as PWs.1 and 2. They did not supported the

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36739 CRL.A No. 1325 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

case of the prosecution. Having considered the evidence of eyewitnesses and their hostility, it is appropriate to grant bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶49

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

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. ii) The order dated 17.05.2025 passed in Spl.C.No.1752/2021 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru, is set aside.

¶52

iii) The appellant / accused No.2 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.337/2021 of respondent-police, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶53