Sri Prajwal M @ Goobe Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45740 CRL.A No. 1864 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1864 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PRAJWAL M @ GOOBE, S/O MALLESHGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.2474, HOSABANDIKERE, 2^ND CROSS, NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE, K R MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 024.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

¶13

Location: High Court Of Karnatka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KRISHNARAJA POLICE STATION, KRISHNARAJA SUB-DIVISION, MYSURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

SRI MAHESH, S/O SAPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT D NO.2720, 2^ND CROSS, MEDARAKERI, K R MOHALLA, MYSURU CITY-570 024.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1, SMT. PARINEETA S. CHANAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:45740 CRL.A No. 1864 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 02.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU, THEREBY REJECTING THE BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 HEREIN U/S 439 OF CR.P.C IN THE CASE IN SPL.C.NO.327/2024 OF THE 1st RESPONDENT/POLICE REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.45/2024 KRISHNARAJAPURA P.S, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 341,302,201,504 R/W 34 OF IPC, U/S 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the VI Addl. District and Special Judge, Mysuru dated 02.07.2025 in Spl.C.No.327/2024.

¶25

The brief facts leading to this appeal is that on the basis of the complaint filed by Mahesha, Krishnaraja Police Station, Mysuru, has registered a case in Crime No.45/2024 against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 504, read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2)(v-a) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45740 CRL.A No. 1864 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

On 29.04.2024, after registeration of FIR, the injured died in the hospital. Thereafter the Investigating Officer has inserted the offence under Section 302 of IPC. After investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections under Sections 341, 302, 201, 504, read with 34 of IPC and section 3 (2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. The appellant has filed application before the trial Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The same came to be rejected on 02.07.2025. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the complainant is not an eye witness in this case. The MLCA report reveals that the injured was admitted to the hospital with history of assault by unknown persons. The name of the accused was not revealed in the medical report. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of CW16/Shashikala on 07.05.2024, after lapse of 10 day from the death of the deceased. CW9 is also not an eye witness to the incident as per the statement recorded by the police, only after the incident he came to the spot. Further submits that

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:45740 CRL.A No. 1864 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

this court has already granted bail to the accused No.4/Yashwanth in Crl.A.No.1653/2024 dated 24.9.2025.

¶34

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed

¶35

that the entire case is based on the evidence of eyewitness namely, CW16 and CW17. The fact remains that they did not speak about the overt act attributed against the appellant. Therefore, in view of principle of parity, the accused/appellant is entitled for bail and on all these grounds, sought to allow this appeal.

¶36

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri.B.Lakshman would submit that CW16 and CW17 are the eyewitness to this incident. They have clearly stated as to the alleged incident. Due to previous enmity, accused No.1 has committed the murder with an intention to kill the deceased. It is submitted that after the alleged incident, the injured was unable to speak. Hence, the statement was not recorded. The Investigating Officer has collected sufficient materials to file the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged commission of offences. Accused No.1 is not standing on the same footing. Hence, the grant of bail to accused No.4 is

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45740 CRL.A No. 1864 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

not a ground to release this prime accused on bail. The alleged commission of offence are heinous in nature. Hence, he sought

¶40

for dismissal of this appeal.

¶41

Having heard the arguments on both side and

¶42

perusal of material on record, the following points would arise for my consideration is:

¶43

i) Whether the appellant has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court?

¶44

ii) What order?

¶45

My answer to the above points are as under:

¶46

1. Negative.

¶47

1. As per final order.

¶48

POINT NO.1

¶49

I have examined the materials placed before this Court. The Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 302, 201, 504, read with 34 IPC and Section 3, 2(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. In the charge sheet, CW16 and CW17 are shown as eye witnesses. The Investigating Officer has

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45740 CRL.A No. 1864 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

recorded the statement of CW17-Sachin, S/o Venkatesh on 29.04.2024, wherein, the police have recorded the statement of Sachin that he has witnessed the alleged incident committed by the accused Prajwala, Abhisheka, Prashanth and Yashwanth.

¶53

A perusal of prosecution papers i.e. statement of witnesses, mahazar witnesses, inquest mahazar witnesses, medical report, post mortem report reveals that there are prima facie material against the accused i.e., the present appellant for the alleged commission of offences. The alleged commission of offences are heinous in nature, punishable with death or imprisonment for life. At this stage, if the accused is released on bail, he may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses and also it will affect the society at large.

¶54

For the aforesaid reasons, the accused/appellant is not entitled for bail on principle of parity. The trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on record and rightly rejected the bail application. I do not find any error/illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶55