Sri S Revanth Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:48689 CRL.A No. 2422 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2422 OF 2024 (U/S 14(A) (2))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI S. REVANTH S/O LATE SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT JAGAJEEVANAPALYA, SRINIVASAPURA TOWN AND TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563115

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. K. RAM SINGH, ADV.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRINIVASAPURA POLICE STATION, KOLAR, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU-560001.

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI AMARNATHA S. S/O SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,. R/AT DAYANANDA ROAD, SRINIVASAPURA TOWN AND TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563115

¶13

DR. CHANDRAKALA W/O LATE SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, JAKIR HUSSAIN MOHALLA, SRINIVASAPURA TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563135.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY KUM. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL SPP. FOR R1, SMT. C. H. HANUMANTHARAYA, ADV. FOR R3.) [CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED:17.11.2025.]

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:48689 CRL.A No. 2422 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN SPL.S.C.NO.3/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 109,120-B,201,212,302,307 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 09.10.2024 passed in Spl.S.C.No.03/2024 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (for short 'the trial Court').

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to their rank before the trial Court.

¶25

Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the basis of the complaint filed by Amaranatha.S, Srinivaspura Police have registered the case in Crime No.372/2023 against accused Nos.1 to 4 and three others for the commission of offence under sections 120B, 302 and 307

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:48689 CRL.A No. 2422 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

IPC. After investigation, the IO has submitted charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offence under sections 120B, 109, 212, 307, 302, 201 r/w 149 of IPC

¶30

and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

¶31

The appellant/accused No.9 had filed application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail, which came to be rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶32

Learned counsel Sri K.Ram Singh, appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the appellant has not committed any offence as alleged against him. As per charge sheet, the allegation against this appellant is that, the appellant was a II year B.Com student and he had conspired along with co-accused persons. The appellant was standing outside the building. The prosecution claims that the complainant Amarnatha.S-CW1, E.Krishna-CW2 and CW3- Ratan Parja are the eyewitnesses. Statement of

¶33

CW2 and CW3 under Section 161 are said to be recorded on 28.10.2023. The incident took place on 23.10.2023.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:48689 CRL.A No. 2422 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

There is an inordinate unexplained delay of 5 days in recording the statements of CW2 and CW3, hence, they are the planted witnesses. If really they are the eyewitness, nothing would have prevented them to give their statement at the earliest point of time or at the time of drawing the inquest proceedings. There is no individual overt act attributed against the appellant and therefore, the allegations made in the complaint are vague and ambiguous. The appellant is stranger to the alleged eyewitnesses. Test Identification Parade (TIP) is said to have been conducted to CWs.1 to 3 on 09.01.2024. There is an inordinate unexplained delay of 70 days in conducting TIP. The TIP should be conducted at the earliest point of time, to know whether the ongoing investigation is on the correct lines or not. The procedure adopted by the Taluka Magistrate at the time of conducting TIP is not as per the procedure required under law. There is no proforma to maintain at the time of conducting TIP. The TIP maintained by the Taluka Executive Magistrate is contrary to the law. The Investigating Officer has not seized any

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48689 CRL.A No. 2422 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

weapon at the instance of the appellant. It is said that 1 motorcycle and 1 mobile phone was recovered and the same do not stand in the name of the appellant. Statements of CWs.1 to 3 are said to have been recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C on 08.11.2023. In the said statement also, no individual overt acts have been attributed against the appellant. These eye-witnesses are the planted eye-witnesses. The appellant was arrested on 01.11.2023. The appellant was a B.Com student and his custodial interrogation was not required. If he continues to be behind the bars for an indefinite period, his education career will be collapsed and his future will be spoiled. There is no any criminal antecedent against him. The allegation made in the charge sheet in Column No.17 is altogether different from the statements of alleged eyewitnesses i.e. CW1- Amarnatha.S, CW2-E.Krishna and CW3-Rathan Parja. There are so many pending cases against the deceased and he had so many enemies in the society. Hence, threat to life of the deceased from others cannot be ruled out. The persons who are inimically

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:48689 CRL.A No. 2422 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

disposed towards the appellant have implicated his name in the said crime. There is no consistency and corroboration with the ocular and medical evidence. The Investigating Agency has cited 59 charge sheet witnesses. To examine all these witnesses, it may take considerable time. Though the incident said to have been taken place about an year and a month ago, so far charges are not framed. Speedy trial is the fundamental right of every citizen. The appellant is ready to furnish solvent surety. On all these grounds, it is sought for allowing this appeal.

¶45

To substantiate his argument, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India in

¶46

Crl.A.No.3173/2024, and the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and Another in Crl.A.No.2787/2024 and the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of S.Abhi @ Abhilash Reddy vs. State of Karnataka in

¶47

Crl.P.No.7462/2014.

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:48689 CRL.A No. 2422 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

7. Statement of objections has been filed on behalf of

¶52

the State. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has also filed his written objections. They have reiterated the averments made in their respective statement of objections and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶53

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has relied on the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court:

¶54

(1) Deepak Yadav vs. State of UP (2022) 8 SCC 559

¶55

(2) Gobarbhai Singala vs. State of Gujarat, (2008) 3 SCC 775

¶56

(3) Balu Khalde vs. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365

¶57

(4) Jagjeeti Singh vs. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321

¶58

(5) Sangitaben Datanta vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 14 SCC 522

¶59

(6) State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702.

¶60

Having heard the arguments on both sides and on

¶61

perusal of the materials available on record, the following points would arise for my consideration:

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:48689 CRL.A No. 2422 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

(1) Whether the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the bail application?

¶66

(2) What order?

¶67

My answer to the above points are as follows:

¶68

(1) Regarding Point No.1 - in the negative. (2) Point No.2 - As per final order.

¶69

I have examined the materials placed before this

¶70

court. On the basis of the complaint filed by Amarnatha.S, Srinivasapura Police have registered the case in Crime No. 372/2023 against the accused Nos.1 to 4 and others for the commission of alleged offence. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 9 for the commission of offence under sections 120B, 109, 212, 307, 302, 201 r/w 149 of IPC and sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST (POA) Act,

¶71

The present appellant is the accused No.9. In column No.17 of the charge sheet, the allegations made against accused No.9 are as under:

¶72

"ಈತನು ಆ�ೋ�-1 �ೇಣು�ೋ�ಾ� ರವರ ಅಣ�ನ ಮಗ�ಾ�ದು�, ಆ�ೋ�-1 ರವರು ��ೕ��ಾಸ! gÀವರನು" ಹ$ೆ �ೈಷಮ'ದ (ನ")ೆಯ+,

¶73

9 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:48689 CRL.A No. 2422 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

-ೊ)ೆ .ಾಡ0ೇ-ೆಂ2ಾಗ ಎ। �ೇಣು�ೋ�ಾ� 4ಾಗೂ ಉ6ದ DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÁzÀ J2 ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµï, J3 ªÀÄÄ£ÉÃAzÀæ, J4 ºÀ¶ðvï, J5 ZÀAzÀ£ï, J6 £ÁUÉÃAzÀæ, J7 CgÀÄuï ಕು.ಾ8 ಮತು9 ಎ8 �ೌತ; ರವ�ೊಂ<�ೆ =ೇ>-ೊಂಡು ��ೕ��ಾಸ! ರವರನು" -ೊ)ೆ .ಾಡಲು C¥À�ಾ@ಕ ಒಳ ಸಂಚು ರೂ�D, ಎ1, ಎ2, ಮತು9 ಎ3 ರವರು <�ಾಂಕ: 23.10.2023 ರಂದು ��ೕ��ಾಸಪIರ ಪಟKಣದ ��ೕ��ಾಸಪIರ ಮುಳ0ಾ�ಲು ರ=ೆ9ಯ 4ೊಗಳ�ೆ�ೆ -ಾ�L ಬ6Nರುವ ��ೕ��ಾಸ! ರವ>�ೆ =ೇ>ದ ¤.ಾOಣ ಹಂತದ+,ದ� 0ಾ8 ಅಂP �ೆ=ೊKೕ�ೆಂQ ಕಟKಡದ ಆವರಣದ+,ದ� .ಾRನ ಮರದ ಹS9ರ ಮTಾ'ಹ" ¸ÀÄ.ಾರು 12-15 ಗಂUೆ ಸಮಯದ+, ��ೕ��ಾಸ! ರವರನು" ತ)ಾV8ಗ6ಂದ 4ೊWೆದು -ೊ)ೆ .ಾಡು�ಾಗ FvÀ£ÀÄ Xಾ�ಾದರು ಅ+,�ೆ ಬಂದು ತWೆಯಬಹು2ೆಂದು ಕಟKಡದ 4ೊರಗWೆ �ಂತು ಆ�ೋ�-5 ಚಂದ! ಮತು9 ಎ8 �ೌತ; ರವ�ೊಂ<�ೆ =ೇ> ��ಾವ(D -ೊ)ೆ .ಾಡಲು ಸಹಕ>DರುZಾ9�ೆ . ಆದ�>ಂದ ಸದ> ಆ�ೋ�ಯು ಕಲಂ: 120([), 109, 302 �ೆ /R 149 >ೕZಾ' ಅಪ�ಾಧ�ೆಸ�ರುವIದು ದೃಢಪ_Kರುತ92ೆ ."

¶77

As per the charge sheet, CW1 is the complainant. CW2-E.Krishna and CW3-Ratan Purja are the eyewitnesses

¶78

to the alleged incident. The Investigating Officer has produced CWs.1 to 3 before the jurisdictional Magistrate to record the statement under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C.

¶79

Perusal of the statement of CW1 to CW3 under

¶80

Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. and also other prosecution papers reveal that there are prima facie materials to constitute the commission of alleged offence against this

¶81

10 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:48689 CRL.A No. 2422 of 2024

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

present appellant. Apart from this, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for respondent No.3- Sri Sunil D Galle, the Assistant Superintendent of District Prison, Chikkaballapura Taluk, Chikkaballapura, has allegedly, lodged a complaint against accused Nos.1 to 9. Among them, the present appellant is the accused No.8, UTP No.551/2023 for the offences in Crime No.164/2025. On the basis of the complaint, the Chikkapallapura Rural Police have registered the case in Crime No.164/2025 against accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offences punishable under Section 121, 127(1), 132, 238, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The present appellant is the accused No.8 in the said case. The commission of alleged offences are heinous in nature, punishable with death or imprisonment for life. At this stage, if the accused/appellant is released on bail, it will affect the society at large. There is every possibility of tampering or threatening the prosecution witnesses.

¶85

11 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:48689 CRL.A No. 2422 of 2024

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

This Court has dismissed the appeal filed by accused No.5-Gautam.R. and accused No.8-Chandan.S in Crl.A.No.2150/2024 clubbed with Crl.A.No.2288/2024 dated 14.03.2025.

¶89

On careful examination of the entire materials on record, I do not find any error/illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in negative.

¶90

Regarding Point No.2

¶91