Sri.Vinod G Vs State of Karnataka

INDICATED IN CHARGESHEET AS: SRI. VINOD G S/O. LATE GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT: ADAKAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBALI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 123.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. AMAR ALEXANDER CORREA., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADANAYAKANAHALLY POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-562 123.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30686 CRL.A No. 1542 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

SRI. SUNIL S/O. CHANNAMALLAPPA R/O BINNAMANGALA, NELAMANGALA TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. NATIVE : KOHINURU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, BASAVAKALYANA TALUK, BIDAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-585 327.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989 PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2025 IN CRL.MISC NO.2683/2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL AT BENGALURU THEREBY REJECTING THE BAIL PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:30686 CRL.A No. 1542 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

The appellant who is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.861/2024 of the respondent - Police is before this Court seeking regular bail for the offences punishable under Sections 140(1), 103, 118(1) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS, 2023”) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 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 30.01.2025 passed in Crl.Misc No.2683/2024 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶30

Factual matrix of the case:

¶31

It is the case of the prosecution that, the respondent No.2 is a resident of Binnamangala, Nelamangala Town. Respondent No.2 is the youngest son amongst the children of his parents. He was working as a driver in a private company in Bengaluru. On 06.10.2024, Anil, the brother of respondent No.2 had called him stating that

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30686 CRL.A No. 1542 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Hindi speaking boys were quarreling with him on the issue of a cooking gas cylinder and asked the respondent No.2 to come. Immediately, at about 6.00 p.m., he rushed to the said place and advised the said Hindi speaking boys not to quarrel with his brother and left to his room at Binnamangala. On the same day, at about 10.30 p.m., again his brother called him over the phone and told him that he is in a parking yard. The petitioner, chetan and two other drivers were beating him and asked him to come there. At about 10.45 a.m., the respondent No.2 was called by accused No.2 and others stating that he had to come there or else his brother would be finished. The respondent No.2 went to the spot around 1.00 a.m. There, the petitioner, chetan and two other drivers were present. The petitioner and others have started beating the respondent No.2 and Anil with a club and abused respondent No.2 in a filthy language, humiliated by naming his caste and went away from the place. The brother of respondent No.2 sustained severe injuries to his stomach and leg. Later, the respondent No.2 took his brother to his room at Binnamangala. His

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30686 CRL.A No. 1542 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

brother did not take any treatment. Thereafter, on 07.10.2024, the brother of respondent No.2 was suffering from stomach pain. Hence, he was shifted to ‘Care Asia Hospital’, Nelamangala Town, there his brother undergone operation. but, he could not survive. He died on 09.10.2024. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered against the accused and others. The respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.861/2024. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

¶38

Heard Sri.Amar Alexander Correa, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State.

¶39

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was working as a driver. The overt-act against him is that, he assaulted the deceased with hands and also stated to have assaulted the complainant. The deceased died due to stomach pain. The opinion of the Doctor would indicate that the deceased died due to septicemia as a result of peritonitis consequent upon blunt trauma to abdomen. As the appellant had not

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30686 CRL.A No. 1542 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

committed any offence or assault on the stomach of the deceased, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶43

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State vehemently opposed in granting bail to the appellant and she further submitted that the allegations are serious in nature. The incident of assault had taken place for the reason that the deceased belongs to a schedule caste. Since the appellant has committed a heinous offence, his bail application cannot be considered and it has to be rejected. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the record that respondent No.2, being the brother of the deceased, had lodged a complaint stating that his brother was working as a cleaner in the company, namely, D.P World Express Logistics Private Limited. The accused No.2 was working

¶45

7 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:30686 CRL.A No. 1542 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

as a Supervisor in the said company, who belongs to Lingayat community and he had appointed accused Nos.3 and 4 as drivers in the said logistics company. On 06.10.2024, the deceased Anil had asked C.W.19 and C.W.20, a gas cylinder to get his food cooked. However, it was rejected by C.W.19 and C.W.20. Thereafter, on the same day, he called C.W.19 and C.W.20 and assaulted them for not giving a gas cylinder. Accused No.1 having learnt that deceased Anil had assaulted C.W.19 and C.W.20, he went to the house of deceased Anil and advised him that he should not assault C.W.19 and C.W.20. Being enraged by the said act, deceased Anil assaulted accused No.2. Thereafter, all the accused persons went to the house of Anil and stated to have assaulted the deceased Anil. However, the overt-act against the appellant is that, he assaulted the deceased with his hands and other parts of his body.

¶49

Having considered the overt-act of the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has made out a case to grant him bail.

¶50

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶51

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:30686 CRL.A No. 1542 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. ii) The order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Crl.Misc No.2683/2024 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is set aside.

¶55

iii) The appellant / accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.861/2024 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 Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶56

a) The appellant shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶57

b) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶58

c) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court till disposal of the case.

¶59

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶60

UN, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Sri.Vinod G v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Vinod G 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

Naveen K J Vs the State of Srinivaspura Ps

Anil Kumar @ Anil Mogambo Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkataravana Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Dasappa Vs Sri a.S.Jayasimha

Mr Papanna Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Ravi K Vs Mr. Abhishek S Bhat