Dismissed¶¶55

Vinay Gowda. M @ Nanju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2025CRL.A/1350/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail rejected; solitary eyewitness pending examination cited as ground for continued judicial custody (witness protection / fair trial); statutory appeal under S.14A(2) SC & ST (POA) Act against Sessions Court bail refusal; offences under Ss.126(2), 109(1), 115(2), 352 r/w 3(5) BNS-2023 and Ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015; Crime No.102/2025, New Town P.S.; trial before IV CJ & JMFC, Bhadravathi, Shivamogga; CAV judgment; appeal dismissed 12.09.2025; appeal qua appellant No.3 dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted on the memo dated 04.09.2025; the appeal in respect of appellant No.3 (Bairegowda M. @ Bairа) is dismissed as having become infructuous. ¶¶32

Vinay Gowda. M @ Nanju Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether appellant Nos. 1 and 2, seeking regular bail in Crime No.102/2025, should be enlarged on bail where the charge-sheet discloses a solitary eyewitness whose examination is still pending.

¶¶53

Court's answer

On the charge-sheet averments, the appellants assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons and caused injuries in the presence of the eyewitness, on account of the old enmity existing between the deceased and the appellants.

¶¶52

Ratio / Principle

Leave granted on the memo dated 04.09.2025; the appeal in respect of appellant No.3 (Bairegowda M. @ Bairа) is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

Since the charge-sheet discloses only one eyewitness, that witness must be protected in the interest of securing fair and impartial justice; it is appropriate to reject bail until the examination of the eyewitness is over.ratio¶¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under S.14A(2) of the SC and ST (POA) Act (CRL.A No. 1350 of 2025, S RACHAIAH J., decided 12.09.2025) against the order dated 11.06.2025 in Cr.No.5017/2025 of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at Bhadravathi, whereby regular bail was refused to the appellants in Crime No.102/2025 of New Town Police Station for alleged offences punishable under Ss.126(2), 109(1), 115(2), 352 read with S.3(5) of BNS-2023 and S.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. Prosecution case: the deceased Sathyaraj was restrained and indiscriminately assaulted, allegedly by the accused, in the presence of eyewitness Pradeep; motive attributed is an old enmity originating in a quarrel on 27.01.2025. On counsel's memo dated 04.09.2025 the appeal qua appellant No.3 was dismissed as infructuous. For appellant Nos. 1 and 2 the Court held that the charge-sheet discloses only one eyewitness, who must be protected in the interest of fair and impartial justice; hence bail was appropriately rejected till the examination of that eyewitness concludes. Criminal appeal dismissed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:36379 CRL.A No. 1350 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1350 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VINAY GOWDA M. @ NANJU S/O SRI.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT BACKSIDE KALINGESHWARA TEMPLE, HOSA SIDDAPURA BHADRAVATHI TALUK – 577 301

¶9

GANESH P. @ SHANI S/O SRI.PARAMESH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NEAR LAXMI BAKERY MAIN ROAD, HOS SIDDAPURA BHADRAVATHI TALUK – 577 301

¶10

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

BAIREGOWDA M. @ BAIRA S/O SRI.MURTHY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT 5^TH CROSS

¶12

HOSSA SIDDAPURA BHADRAVATHI TALUK – 577 301 … APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI.SUHAIB FAZEEL MADAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NEW TOWN POLICE STATION REP. BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:36379 CRL.A No. 1350 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT.DEEPA S. W/O SRI.JOHN PASER AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT 101*39 NEAR USHA CLINIC RAMASWAMY PALYA KAMANAHALLI

¶20

BANGALORE – 560 084 …RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 11.06.2025 PASSED IN CR.NO.5017/2025 BY IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.102/2025 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 126(2), 109(1), 115(2), 352 READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BNS-2023 AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 FILED BY NEW TOWN POLICE STATION PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED IV CJ AND CJMFC COURT, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶23

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 30.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:36379 CRL.A No. 1350 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CAV JUDGMENT

¶29

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

¶30

As regards the other appellants are concerned, they are seeking bail. Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo dated 04.09.2025 seeking leave of this Court to dismiss the appeal against the accused No.3, as it becomes infructuous.

¶31

Considering the same, leave granted as prayed for

¶32

and the appeal in respect of appellant No.3 is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶33

The appellant Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court

¶34

seeking regular bail in Crime No.102/2025 of the respondent-Police.

¶35

Factual matrix of the case:

¶36

The case of the prosecution is that the sister of the deceased had lodged a complaint stating that on 25.04.2025, she had instructed her brother Sathyaraj to bring god’s photo

¶37

for the purpose of performing pooja around about 8.30 P.M. On 9.30 P.M, when she called her brother, he stated that he was with his friend Pradeep and both were having dinner, after,

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36379 CRL.A No. 1350 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

having the dinner he would come to the house. Again, on 11.30 P.M, the phone of her brother was busy. However, she received a phone call from Pradeep stating that her brother was restrained by accused Nos.1 and 2 and he was assaulted by the accused indiscriminately. Having heard the said news, she went to Shivamogga to see her brother, as her brother was not in a condition to speak and she lodges a complaint.

¶41

According to her the motive for murder is that on 27.01.2025, her brother has celebrated his birthday by dancing with his friends. The quarrel was taken place between the accused and the complainant. Therefore, they were waiting for an opportunity to eliminate the deceased. Accordingly, they committed murder.

¶42

Heard Sri.Suhaib Fazeel Madar, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

¶43

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that, though, the said Pradeep claimed to be the eye-witness to the incident, the fact remains that, he stated

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36379 CRL.A No. 1350 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

that two persons had assaulted the deceased. However, a complaint came to be registered against three persons. There is a discrepancy in the statement of said Pradeep and also it is the fact that the entire case is based on the circumstantial

¶47

evidence. Hence, the bail may be granted.

¶48

Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, vehemently, submitted that the incident of assault had taken place in front of the eye-witness, namely Pradeep. Since, he is the only eye-witness to the incident, the appellants are required to be kept in judicial custody till the examination of eye-witness to the incident is over.

¶49

It is further submitted that the appellants have committed heinous offence and brutal murder by attacking the deceased when he was going to his home, shows the intention to terrorize the locality by creating nuisance. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant bail in the interest of not only the family of victim and the eye-witness but also the public at large. Therefore, the appeal may be rejected.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36379 CRL.A No. 1350 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge-sheet, it appears from the record that the appellants are stated to have assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons and caused injuries in the presence of the eye-witness, on account of the old enmity existed between the deceased and the appellants.

¶53

As per the averments of the charge-sheet there is only one eye-witness to the incident and it is necessary to protect the witness in the interest of securing the fair and impartial justice. Therefore, it is appropriate to reject the bail till the examination of eye-witness is over. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed .

¶56

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶57

UN/nm/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32

Vinay Gowda. M @ Nanju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Gowda. M @ Nanju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Kumar Vs the State by Aldur Police

Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt Bhagyamma N P Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Transpower Technologies Vs Mrs Elsy Jose

Sri Gulshankumar Sodhi Vs Smt Kamala Rani Sodhi Dead

Sri. Y. Samuel Vs Sri. Y. Victor Raju