Sri.Yashwanth @ Micky Vs State of Karnataka by

SRI.YASHWANTH @ MICKY S/O BALARAJU AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS (PRESENT AGE) R/AT NO. S-4 BLOCK 1 NURM APARTMENT MAHADEVAPURA J P NAGARA MYSURU 570 031 …APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. GAURAV SUBRAMANYAM., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KRISHNARAJA POLICE STATION MYSORE CITY, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

SRI MAHESH S/O LATE SAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38410 CRL.A No. 1653 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

(PRESENT AGE)

¶19

R/AT D NO. 2720 2^ND CROSS, MEDARAKERI K R MOHALLA MYSURU CITY 570 004

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. B.PUSHPALATHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SPL.JUDGE COURT AT MYSORE ON 29.08.2024 IN SPL.C.NO.327/2024 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED NO.4 ON BAIL IN CR.NO.45/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT KRISHNARAJA P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341,302,504,201 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRESENTLY PENDING IN SPL.CASE NO.327/2024 (CR.NO.45/2024) ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SPL.JUDGE COURT AT MYSORE.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:38410 CRL.A No. 1653 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

The appellant, who is arraigned as accused No.4 in Crime No.45/2024 of the respondent – Police, is before this Court seeking regular bail for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302, 201 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’) and seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed in Spl.C.No.327/2024 by the learned VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru.

¶30

Factual matrix of the case:

¶31

The case of the prosecution is that one Mahesh son of Appaiah lodged a complaint stating that in the month of June, 2024, one Abhishek had received a bulb horn from his son, in spite of repeated request made by his son to return the said horn, he did not return the same. Therefore, his son intended to lodge a complaint against the said person. Though it was returned to the deceased Kumara, there was a grudge between the accused and the son of the complainant.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:38410 CRL.A No. 1653 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

On 28.04.2024, all the accused in furtherance of common intention to eliminate the deceased Kumara, restrained him and his auto, dragged him out of the auto and assaulted indiscriminately. Consequently, he died in the hospital on the following day. Hence, a complaint came to be registered against him for the aforesaid offences.

¶36

Heard Sri. Gaurav Subramanyam, learned counsel

¶37

for the appellant, Smt. B.Pushpalatha, learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1-State.

¶38

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that no specific overt-act is attributed against the appellant who is arrayed as accused No.4 and he has not committed any offences as stated supra. The entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. C.Ws.16 and 17 though stated to be the eyewitnesses to the incident, they did not speak about the overtact about the appellant. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶39

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader

¶40

for respondent No.1– State vehemently opposed the grant of bail. She further submitted that accused Nos. 1 to 4 in

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38410 CRL.A No. 1653 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

furtherance of common intention committed murder of deceased Kumara who is the son of the complainant. There are two eyewitnesses to the incident, if the appeal is allowed, there would be a threat for the lives of the witnesses, hence, it is not appropriate to enlarge the appellant on bail. Making such submissions, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶44

Having heard learned counsel for the respective

¶45

parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court, it appears from the record that the entire case is based on the evidence of eyewitnesses namely C.Ws.16 and 17, the fact remains that, they did not speak about the overtact attributed against the appellant. Therefore, it is not appropriate to keep him in judicial custody under such circumstances and also on given set of facts.

¶46

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

¶49

ii) The impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed in Spl.C.No.327/2024 by the learned VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, is set aside.

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:38410 CRL.A No. 1653 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

iii) The appellant / accused No.4 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.45/2024 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 jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶58

NM

¶59

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15

Sri.Yashwanth @ Micky v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Yashwanth @ Micky v. State of Karnataka by

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

Smt Sudha Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Mjr Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mr. B. K. Padmanabha Reddy

Dr S B Vikram Vs Dr B K Suresh

Harish @ Handi Harish Vs the State of Karnataka by

Irene Omoibe Alias Iryan Vs Union of India

Sri Anjinappa Vs State by