Sri.K.N.Chandrashekara Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI T.V. PARASHIVAMURTHY, S/O VENKATANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT THONDAVADI VILLAGE, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 571313.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1, R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2025 IN CR NO.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:41632 CRL.A No. 1783 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

112/2025 BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHAMARAJANAGARA ALSO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT BEGUR POLICE STATION TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.112/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) OF SC/ST (PROHIBITION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989, SECTIONS 352, 351(3), 126(2) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA 2023, SECTION 38 OF THE KARNATAKA MONEY LENDERS ACT, SECTION 3 AND 4 OF KARNATAKA PROHIBITION OF CHARGING EXORBITANT INTEREST ACT 2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHAMARAJANAGARA.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Appellant has preferred this appeal against the Order dated 06^th August 2025 pertaining to Crime No.112 of 2025 by the District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant came to be dismissed.

¶26

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per status before the trial Court.

¶27

Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, Begur Police registered case against the accused for commission of offence punishable under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:41632 CRL.A No. 1783 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Act, 1989 (for short "the SC/ST (PoA) Act"); under sections 352, 351(3), 126(2) of BNSS-2023, under section 38 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961; and under sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004. The bail application was filed before the trial court and the same came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection of bail application, the applicant has preferred the present appeal.

¶32

The trial court has rejected the bail application on the ground that the investigation was not completed. It is submitted that the investigation is already completed and charge-sheet has been filed on 15 September 2025. Now the accused is not required for further investigation. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Considering the nature and gravity of offence, the antecedents of the accused/appellant and the age and occupation, I am of the opinion that it is just a proper to allow the appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

i) Appeal is allowed;

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:41632 CRL.A No. 1783 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

ii) Order dated 06^th August 2025, passed in Crime No.112 of 2025, by the District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara, is set aside;

¶39

iii) The bail application filed by the accused/appellant under section 483 of BNSS is allowed;

¶40

iv) Appellant/accused shall be released on bail upon execution of self-bond for Rs.1,00,000/with one surety to the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court;

¶41

v) Appellant shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

¶42

vi) Appellant shall not indulge in similar offences;

¶43

vii) Appellant shall appear before the trial court on all the dates of hearing.

¶44

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 89

¶46

lnn

Sri.K.N.Chandrashekara v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.K.N.Chandrashekara v. the 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

J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs Rahamathulla Khan

M/S Prasad Infrastructural Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S Vijay Auto Sales and Services (P) Ltd.

J C Flowers Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shyju Abraham Thomas

J C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs Neelakanda Prabhu

Jayalakshmamma Vs State

Goutham Vs State by Rural Police, Shivamogga