Ganesha R., Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY NYAMATHI POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

CHAYTHRA, W/O SHIVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, MARIGONDANAGALLI VILLAGE, KOTEHAL POST, NYAMATHI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRCT-577223.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. M.G.KANTHARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15281 CRL.A No. 337 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 482 of 2025 CRL.A No. 594 of 2025

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE IN SPL.C.NO.485/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 191(2)(3), 329(4), 351(3), 76, 118(1), 115(2), 109(1), 189(2), 103(1), 352 R/W SECTION 190 OF BNSS, 2023 AND SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(V), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

¶22

IN CRL.A NO.482/2025:

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

SHEKHARAPPA @ SOGILU SHEKHARAPPA, S/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶25

SANDEEPA, S/O BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶26

ANILA S.A., S/O ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, COOLIE WORK.

¶27

ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHI. KADADAKATTE VILLAGE, NYAMATHI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577223.

¶28

...APPELLANTS

¶29

(BY SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE STATE BY NYAMATHI POLICE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15281 CRL.A No. 337 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 482 of 2025 CRL.A No. 594 of 2025

¶33

SMT. CHYTHRA, W/O. SHIVARAJA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT MARIGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, NYAMATHI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577223.

¶34

...RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. M.G.KANTHARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶36

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE SPL.SC.NO.485/2024 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.200/2024 OF NYAMATHI P.S., DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, IN SPL.SC.NO.485/2024, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 61(2), 74, 191(2), 191(3), 329(4), 351(3), 118(1), 115(2), 109(1), 189(4), 103(1), 352, 190, 62 OF BNS, 2023, UNDER SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1986.

¶37

IN CRL.A NO.594/2025:

¶38

BETWEEN:

¶39

SUDEEPA, S/O CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

¶40

SACHIN, S/O KUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

¶41

ANJANEYA, S/O SHEKHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

¶42

ALL ARE RESIDING AT

¶43

CHI. KADADAKATTE VILLAGE,

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15281 CRL.A No. 337 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 482 of 2025 CRL.A No. 594 of 2025

¶45

NYAMATHI TALUK, DAVANAGERE-577223.

¶46

...APPELLANTS

¶47

(BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE)

¶48

AND:

¶49

STATE BY NYAMATHI POLICE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560009.

¶50

CHYTHRA, W/O SHIVARAJA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARIGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, NYAMATHI TALUK, DAVANAGERE-577223.

¶51

...RESPONDENTS

¶52

(SMT. K.P.YASHODA, HCGP FOR R1)

¶53

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE IN SPL.C.NO.485/2024 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.200/2024 OF NAYAMATHI POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 61(2), 74, 191(2), 191(3), 329(4), 351(3), 118(1), 115(2), 109(1), 189(4), 103(1), 352, 190, 62 AND FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(1)(v), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a) OF PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT.

¶54

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

¶55

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15281 CRL.A No. 337 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 482 of 2025 CRL.A No. 594 of 2025

¶56

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

¶57

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶58

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶59

These appeals are filed by accused Nos.9, 4, 6, 7 and 11 to 13, respectively. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that 15 to 20 persons with a common object, formed an unlawful assembly at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 and trespassed the house of the complainant and dragged the complainant’s husband from their house and abused in a filthy language and also taken the caste name and when C.W.1 tried to rescue him, she was also abused by accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused Nos.1 and 2 inflicted injury with knife, as a result, the complainant’s husband succumbed to the injuries. After committing the murder, they all left the place when C.Ws.14 to 17 came from their offices. The prosecution after investigation invoked the offences under Sections 61(2), 74, 191(2), 191(3), 329(4), 351(3), 118(1), 115(2), 109(1), 189(4), 103(1), 352, 190 and 62 of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v),

¶60

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15281 CRL.A No. 337 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 482 of 2025 CRL.A No. 594 of 2025

¶61

3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’ for short).

¶62

The learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.337/2025 would contend that this appellant was shown as accused No.10 in the charge-sheet, but the Trial Court referred him as accused No.9.

¶63

The learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.4, 6 and 7 in Crl.A.No.482/2025 and the learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.11 to 13 in Crl.A.No.594/2025 would submit that in similar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has already granted bail in favour of accused No.3 in Crl.A.No.392/2025 vide order dated 02.04.2025 making an observation that overt-act allegation is made only against accused Nos.1 and 2 and omnibus statement is made that all of them have assaulted with their hands and abused taking the caste name and hence on the ground of parity, these appellants are also entitled for bail.

¶64

The learned counsel for respondent

¶65

No.2/complainant would contend that accused Nos.1 and 2 were indulged in sand mafia and when the complainant’s

¶66

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15281 CRL.A No. 337 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 482 of 2025 CRL.A No. 594 of 2025

¶67

husband gave the complaint, all of them with a motive to eliminate him, formed an unlawful assembly with the common object and trespassed the house of the complainant and dragged the husband of the complainant and inflicted injury with the common intention to take away the life of the husband of the complainant. Hence, there are sufficient material against the appellants and they are not entitled for bail.

¶68

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State would contend that there are material against these appellants and hence they are not entitled for bail.

¶69

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶70

appellants, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2, it is not in dispute that special enactment is invoked against the appellants, but no specific attribution against each of the appellants are stated in the complaint and only an general omnibus statement was made that they abused taking the caste name. This Court in Crl.A.No.392/2025 also taken note of the said fact into

¶71

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15281 CRL.A No. 337 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 482 of 2025 CRL.A No. 594 of 2025

¶72

consideration. There is no any overt-act allegation against these appellants and only an omnibus statement is made that assault was made with their hands. With regard to they were members of the unlawful assembly, the matter requires trial whether they were members of unlawful assembly and with a common object and in furtherance of common object committed the offence and when there is no any overt-act allegation against each of them and particularly accused Nos.1 and 2 inflicted injury, as a result he succumbed to the injuries, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellants by imposing certain conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution.

¶73

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶74

following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

(i) The criminal appeals are allowed.

¶77

(ii) The appellants are granted bail subject to the appellants executing their personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶78

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15281 CRL.A No. 337 of 2025 C/W CRL.A No. 482 of 2025 CRL.A No. 594 of 2025

¶79

(iii) The appellants shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶80

(iv) The appellants shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶81

(v) The appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against them is disposed of.

¶82

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶83

MD

¶84

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Ganesha R., v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesha R., v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt v Backiya Lakshmi Vs Sri Chikkanna

Sri K K Praveena Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Karthik Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.B.R. Anand Vs Smt. V.R. Gisha

Nagesh Vs State of Karnataka

Manjunatha M @ Manja @ Mental Manja Vs the State of Karnataka