Sri Prashanth K, Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. PRASHANTH .K, S/O. KRISHNANAIK AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT: BUDNAHATTI, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA - 577 543 INDICATED IN CHARGESHEET AS: SRI. PRASHANTH, S/O. KRISHNA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT: HOSURU, NAYAKANAHATTI ROAD, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 577 543

¶14

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI. NAVEENA S/O. KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI MALLIKANTHPURA, HASSAN - 573133 INDICATED AS CHARGESHEET AS SRI. NAVEEN S/O. KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT MALLINATHAPURA VILLAGE, RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI, ARKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN -573133

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADANAYAKANAHALLY POLICE

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:28109 CRL.A No. 1392 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 1395 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 123. REP BY: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶23

SRI. SUNIL S/O. CHANNAMALLAPPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT BINNAMANGALA, NELAMANAGALA TOWN, KOHINUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI, BASAVAKALYANA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 585327

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1

¶26

R2 - SD)

¶27

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2025 IN CRL.MISC. NO.1060/2025, PASSED BY THE II ADDL.DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, AT BENGALURU THEREBY REJECTING THE BAIL PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS, VIDE ANNEXURE A. B. GRANT BAIL TO THE APPELLANTS WHO ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.3 AND 4 IN SPL.C NO.1048/2024 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.861/2024 OF RESPONDENT POLICE) PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, AT BENGALURU FOR THE O/P/US/ 140(1), 103, 118(1) R/W 3(5) OF THE BNS AND SEC. 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(V) OF THE SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989, WITH ANY REASONABLE CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:28109 CRL.A No. 1392 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 1395 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

IN CRL.A NO. 1395/2025

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

SRI. CHETAN K R, S/O. RAMESHAPPA K N, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT: #196, KURUBARAHALLI, KANGAVALLI, KONGUVALLI HOSADURGA, CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA - 577 515. INDICATED IN CHARGE SHEET AS SRI. CHETAN K R, S/O. RAMESHAPPA, R/AT KANGUVALLI, KASABA HOBALI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA - 577 515.

¶34

…APPELLANT

¶35

(BY SRI. AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADANAYAKANAHALLY POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 123. REP BY: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶38

SRI. SUNIL S/O. CHANNAMALLAPPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT BINNAMANGALA, NELAMANAGALA TOWN, KOHINUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI, BASAVAKALYANA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 585327

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1

¶41

R2 - SD)

¶42

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2025 IN CRL.MISC. NO.1070/2025, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28109 CRL.A No. 1392 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 1395 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, AT BENGALURU THEREBY REJECTING THE BAIL PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT, VIDE ANNEXURE A. 2. GRANT BAIL TO THE APPELLANT WHO ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.2 IN SPL.C NO.1048/2024 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.0861/2024 OF RESPONDENT MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE) PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, AT BENGALURU FOR THE O/P/US/ 140(1), 103, 118(1) R/W 3(5) OF THE BNS AND SEC. 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(V) OF THE SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989.

¶46

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

¶47

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶48

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶49

Accused No.2 in Crl.A.No.1395/2025, accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crl.A.No.1392/2025 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) in Crime No.861/2024 of Madanayakanahally Police Station, pending in Spl.C.No.1048/2024 before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable under Sections 140(1), 103, 118(1) r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28109 CRL.A No. 1392 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 1395 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

the SC/ST Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Sunil.

¶53

Heard Sri Amar Correa, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶54

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶55

“Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?”

¶56

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶57

R E A S O N S

¶58

It is the contention of the prosecution that, the deceased and his brother - CW1 were known to accused Nos. 1 to 4. On 06.10.2024, a quarrel broke out when the deceased - Anil asked accused No.1 for gas cylinder, and the accused had refused the give the same. On the same day at 6.00 pm, the deceased summoned CW1 near his house and abused CWs.19

¶59

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28109 CRL.A No. 1392 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 1395 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

and 20. Accused No.2 came to the spot and abused CW1 in filthy language by referring to his caste with an intention to humiliate him. During the intervening night of 06/07.10.2024 at about 00.30 hours, accused Nos. 1 to 4 came to the house of the deceased, and abused him in filthy language. Accused No.1 assaulted him with hands, accused Nos.2 and 3 have kicked on his stomach, while accused Nos. 2 and 4 have assaulted him with a riper piece. As a result of which, the injured-Anil fell down with severe pain. The accused have also assaulted CW1 - the brother of the deceased with hands.

¶62

The injured was taken to the private hospital i.e., Care Asia Hospital only on 07.10.2024 at 9.50 pm with a history of assault. The hospital record discloses that, he was not in a condition to give any statement. He died on 09.10.2024 at 6.41am.

¶63

As per inquest mahazar and the post mortem report, surgical wound was found on the abdomen and death was due to septicemia as a result of peritonitis consequent upon blunt trauma to abdomen. Prima facie , no external injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased, but surgical wound was found on the abdomen. It reveals that, in

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:28109 CRL.A No. 1392 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 1395 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

the incident, the deceased must have sustained internal injuries and later, he died due to septicemia.

¶67

It is stated that CW1 being the brother of deceased is the injured eye-witness. There are other two independent eye-witnesses to the incident, who have given their statement regarding the overt act committed by the accused. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. The Investigating Officer has cited in all 49 witnesses in support of its contention. There are strong prima facie materials against the accused for having committed the offence. But since the investigation is already completed, there are no reasons to compel the accused to be detained in custody. It is stated that, they do not have any criminal antecedents. Under such circumstances, their detention in custody would amount to infringement to their right to life and liberty. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the appellants may be granted bail subject to conditions which will take care of the interest of the prosecution as well as interest of the complainant and the witnesses.

¶68

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:28109 CRL.A No. 1392 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 1395 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

ORDER

¶72

The appeal is allowed.

¶73

The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 861/2024 of Madanayakanahally Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶74

a). The appellants shall not commit similar offences.

¶75

b). The appellants shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶76

c). The appellants shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶77

If in case, the appellants violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶78

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:28109 CRL.A No. 1392 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 1395 of 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

On furnishing the sureties by the appellants, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the appellants and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the appellants on bail.

¶81

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶82

SPV

¶83

CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri Prashanth K, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prashanth K, v. 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

Ubedulla Vs State of Karnataka

Y N Rudraiah Vs State by Police Inspector

Mahesha K C Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dore Swamy Vs State by Beechanahalli Police

Parvathi Bai Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghavendra Vs State of Karnataka