Immadi Mahadevaswamy @ Devanna Buiddi, @ Devanna Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

IMMADI MAHADEVASWAMY @ DEVANNA BUIDDI, @ DEVANNA SWAMY S/O. VEERABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. SALURU MATA, MAL MAHADESHWARA HILL, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, PIN-571440.

¶12

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANUMANTARAYA C.H., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

BY: RAMAPURA P.S., KOLLAGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT. (REP: BY THE S.P.P., HIGH COURT PREMISES, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

SMT. RAJAMMA W/O. SIDDARAJU, MAJOR,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:46094 CRL.A No. 2403 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

R/O. DORESWAMY MEDU VILLAGE, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, PIN-571440.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADESH B.N., ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SMT. NIDHI M.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2024 PASSED IN SPL. CASE NO.72/2019 BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT AT CHAMARAJANAGARA AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.72/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, CHARGED FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 118, 120-B, 326, 307, 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(V) (VA) OF THE SC/ST (PA) ACT, 1989, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.266/2018 OF RAMAPURA POLICE STATION, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 05.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:46094 CRL.A No. 2403 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CAV JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

¶30

This appeal is filed by the appellant who is arrayed as accused No.1 seeking for regular bail in Crime No.266/2018 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Atrocity case, Chamarajanagar.

¶31

Factual matrix of the case:

¶32

The case of the prosecution is that on 14.12.2019,

¶33

a complaint came to be registered before the Ramapura Police Station. The said Police registered a case in Crime No.266/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of I.P.C against six named and many unnamed persons in the F.I.R. The said written complaint would indicate that the respondent No.2 is a resident of Doreswamymedu village and he belongs to Scheduled Caste community. On 14.12.2018, she had been to Kicchugutti Maramma temple situated at Suluvadi to go to Om Shakthi Temple at Tamil Nadu. All of them had darshana of the diety and were singing bhajanas in the temple premises. Many unknown persons were also present in vicinity of the temple. On the same date, a stone laying ceremony for

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46094 CRL.A No. 2403 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

consideration of Maha Dwara was also scheduled. After the function there was programme to distribute the prasada. At about 10.30 P.M, Manager of the temple Sri. Chinnappi and accused No.1 in the F.I.R and others requested the devotees to have prasada. All the devotees went and took the rice bath in the paper plates and consumed it.

¶37

It is further stated that there were about 75-100 devotees in the temple. Immediately, after consuming the prasada some devotees started vomiting and felt giddiness. Immediately, all of them were shifted to various hospitals. As per the averments of the charge-sheet, 17 persons died due to complications after eating the prasada, 119 persons suffered from various injuries. In addition to that 27 Crows and 01 Mina bird died in the said incident.

¶38

It is further stated that the appellant had approached the Trial Court for bail, it was rejected on 02.03.2019 on the ground that investigation was still pending. The appellants approached this Court by filing the Criminal Petition seeking for bail. However, it was rejected on merits on 25.09.2019. Subsequently, he preferred a S.L.P before the

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:46094 CRL.A No. 2403 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Apex Court for the same relief. However, it was rejected on 02.12.2019 holding that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. Again, the appellant herein had approached the Trial Court on the health grounds and also delay in concluding the trial. However, the Trial Court violates the order dated 25.03.2023 and rejected the bail. Being aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal before this Court. This Court vide its order dated 18.07.2024 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Second successive bail application was also rejected on 19.11.2024 before the Trial Court, against the said order this appeal is filed by the accused No.1/appellant.

¶43

Heard Sri.Hanumantaraya C.H., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Jagadeesh B.N., learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Smt. Nidhi M. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶44

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that though, successive bail applications were filed for granting of bail to the appellant, all the applications have been rejected on different context. Even, twice it was rejected on the

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46094 CRL.A No. 2403 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

health grounds also. The present appeal is filed under changed circumstances that, the Trial Court is not concluding the trial even after lapse of six years. Moreover, the appellant is suffering from health issues and he needs medical assistance for his survival.

¶48

It is further submitted that the health of the appellant is being deteriorated day by day. There are 332 witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet, so far as, even half of the witnesses have not been examined. There is no possibility to conclude the trial at the earliest. The trial will not be concluded even after lapse of four to five years, under such circumstances if the appellant is not provided better treatment there is all possibilities of losing his life. Therefore, in the interest of his health condition bail may be granted by imposing suitable conditions, he will abide the said conditions. Making such submissions the learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the application.

¶49

Per Contra, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Additional

¶50

State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1, vehemently, submitted that the appellant herein had filed successive bail

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46094 CRL.A No. 2403 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

applications for regular bail, all the appeals have been rejected. Even the grounds urged in the present appeal had also been urged in the previous bail applications. The appellant was unsuccessful not only on the ground of delay in concluding the trial, but also, on the health grounds too. It is further submitted that, if the suitable direction is given by this Court, the medical facilities would be provided at the cost of the appellant. Therefore, it is not appropriate to consider the said application on the health ground. Making such submissions, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶54

Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge-sheet and also considering the latest position of the trial which is being held in the Trial Court, it is necessary to highlight the present position of the case.

¶55

It is noticed that out of 332 witnesses, some of the witnesses have been examined, remaining half of the witnesses are to be examined. The appellant is in judicial custody almost from 05 years. Having regard to the successive bail application filed by the appellant on the health ground, the direction has

¶56

8 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:46094 CRL.A No. 2403 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

given to the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor to produce the present health status of the appellant.

¶60

On perusal of the said medical report, prima-facie it

¶61

appears that the appellant needs proper medication for his survival. Having considered the principle of ‘bail is a rule and jail is exception’, I am of the considered opinion that it is appropriate to grant bail for the limited period for the purpose of the treatment. Without adverting to the merits of the case, I proceed to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed in-part .

¶64

ii. The appellant/accused is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs with two sureties for the like sum of the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶65

iii. The bail is granted for a limited period i.e., only one year. It will be effected from the date of releasing him on bail.

¶66

iv. The appellant shall surrender before the Trial Court after completion of one year.

¶67

9 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:46094 CRL.A No. 2403 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

v. The appellant shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶71

vi. The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates, without fail.

¶72

vii. The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bangalore, Mysore and Chamarajanagar for his necessary treatment, till disposal of the case.

¶73

In the event, if, the appellant violates any of the conditions stated supra, the liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶74

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶75

NM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2

Immadi Mahadevaswamy @ Devanna Buiddi, @ Devanna Swamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Immadi Mahadevaswamy @ Devanna Buiddi, @ Devanna Swamy 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

State by Lokayukta Police Vs H.S. Kenge Gowda

Sri Bagvantha Ray Basavantha Ray Biradar Vs the State of Karnataka

S N Suresh Babu Vs T Gururaj

Yatish Kumar Alias Yatish Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Abhilash @ Abhi Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishna S Vs the State by