Disposed¶36

Sri. Dilip Alias Dilip Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2025CRL.A/284/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conditional bail on medical grounds — kidney donation to sister; appeal under S.14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 against rejection of S.439 CrPC bail; alleged offences Ss.302, 143, 149 IPC and S.3(2)(5) SC/ST (POA) 1989; Crime No.182/2023, Doddabelavangala P.S.; Spl.C.No.61/2024; CKD Stage 5; renal transplant suitability check-up; bond Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties; surrender if unsuitable; Karnataka HC CRL.A No. 284 of 2025, decided 10.03.2025 by H.P. Sandesh, J.

What did the court decide?

Appellant enlarged on bail subject to conditions: one month for donor-suitability medical check-up; three months' bail if the kidney is suitable; surrender within one month if not suitable; bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties before the Trial Court; no tampering with prosecution witnesses. ¶36

Sri. Dilip Alias Dilip Kumar Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant (accused No.1 in Crime No.182/2023) should be enlarged on bail on medical grounds — the kidney ailment of his sister requiring transplantation — notwithstanding the Trial Court's rejection of his Section 439 CrPC bail application.

¶19

Court's answer

The appellant is granted bail to subject himself to medical check-up for suitability of his kidney for transplantation in favour of his sister.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

One month's time is granted for the medical check-up and suitability of the kidney for transplantation; if the kidney is suitable, bail is granted for a period of three months.

¶36

Key takeaways

If the kidney is not suitable, the appellant shall surrender within one month.ratio¶36
The appellant shall execute a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties before the Trial Court.ratio¶36
During the bail period the appellant shall not tamper or make any attempt to tamper the prosecution witnesses.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (H.P. Sandesh, J.) disposed of Criminal Appeal No.284 of 2025, filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 by Dilip alias Dilip Kumar, accused No.1 in Crime No.182/2023 of Doddabelavangala P.S. (offences under Sections 302, 143, 149 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (POA) 1989; Spl.C.No.61/2024), challenging the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District's order dated 25.01.2025 rejecting his Section 439 CrPC bail application. Relying on the discharge summary showing the appellant's sister suffers CKD Stage 5 with renal-transplant counselling and a biopsy dated 30.09.2024 — after an earlier appeal had been rejected on merits (16.05.2024) and Crl.A.No.2102/2024 was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Trial Court — the Court enlarged the appellant on conditional bail: one month for a donor-suitability medical check-up; three months' bail if the kidney is suitable; surrender within one month if not; bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties; and a bar on tampering with prosecution witnesses.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9967 CRL.A No. 284 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.284 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. DILIP ALIAS DILIP KUMAR, S/O LATE CHANNAKESHAVA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNTANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY DODDABELAVANGALA P.S., REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

SRI. ARUN G., S/O GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT KACHERIPALYA, 29^TH WARD, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9967 CRL.A No. 284 of 2025

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2025 ON THE BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE ACCUSED NO.1/APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 439 OF CRPC PASSED BY THE HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU AND TO CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE THE ACCUSED NO.1/APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.182/2023 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 143, 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(5) OF SC/ST (POA) 1989 REGISTERED BY THE DODDABELAVANAGALA POLICE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.61/2024.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent No.1 State. The respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.

¶24

The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the sister of the appellant is suffering from kidney disease. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the discharge summary of Anusha, aged about 27 years and final diagnosis is CKD Stage 5 on conservative management, basic disease – hypertensive nephrosclerosis (global sclerosis – 80%, severe IFTA – 70%), arterial hypertension and also pre-existing medical conditions and medications on presentation and also

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:9967 CRL.A No. 284 of 2025

¶27

with regard to course in hospital and major events during admission and patient came with above complaints and also diagnosed that post procedure there were no complications. Renal biopsy showed features of hypertensive nephrosclerosis with 80% global sclerosis and severe IFTA of 70%. Currently the patient is not dialysis dependent. Patient was counselled regarding renal transplant and regular follow up. Patient is hemodynamically stable and hence being discharged with the following advise. Serum creatinine at the time of discharge is 5.5 mg/dl with good urine output. Renal biopsy was done on 30.09.2024 and condition on discharge is stable.

¶28

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that earlier also the appellant had approached this Court in Crl.A.No.2102/2024, wherein submission was made that the very same ground was not urged before the Trial Court and hence this Court permitted to withdraw the appeal and approach the Trial Court on medical grounds, which have been urged before this Court vide order dated 18.12.2024. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that the Trial Court rejected the bail petition only on the ground that the appellant has not produced any medical documents to show that the condition of the sister of the appellant is such that there is

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9967 CRL.A No. 284 of 2025

¶30

urgent requirement of kidney transplantation. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the discharge summary, wherein it is categorically mentioned regarding renal transplantation to his sister and the same has not been considered by the Trial Court and the Trial Court failed to consider the same and for limited period bail may be granted in favour of the appellant.

¶31

The learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent State would contend that the Trial Court has given the reason that no document is placed before the Court that the sister of the appellant is in urgent need of requirement of kidney transplantation. Having considered the document of discharge summary placed before the Court, dated 04.10.2024, the learned counsel submits that a conditional order may be passed only for transplantation with stringent conditions.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent State and also considering the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, this Court had rejected the appeal on merits vide order dated 16.05.2024. Subsequently, the appellant approached this Court by filing Crl.A.No.2102/2024 and liberty was given to

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:9967 CRL.A No. 284 of 2025

¶35

approach the Trial Court and the Trial Court dismissed the petition in coming to the conclusion that no documentary evidence is placed before the Court regarding kidney transplantation. Having considered the document which is placed before the Court, the report is very clear that the patient was counselled regarding renal transplantation and regular follow up and such course was made in the hospital and biopsy was conducted on 30.09.2024. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the appellant is subjected to examination and if the kidney is not suitable to his sister, he will surrender before the Trial Court.

¶36

Having considered the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is granted bail to subject him for medical check up with regard to suitability of kidney for transplantation in favour of his sister and one month’s time is granted for medical check up and suitability of kidney for transplantation and if the kidney is suitable, the same is granted for a period of three months and if the kidney is not suitable, the appellant shall surrender within one month. With that condition, the appellant is enlarged on bail. The appellant shall execute a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties before the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:9967 CRL.A No. 284 of 2025

¶39

Trial Court and during this period he shall not tamper or make

¶40

any attempt to tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶41