Appaji @ Korama Vs State by Nyamathi Police

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2025 PASSED BY THE 2^ND ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE IN SPL.C.NO.485/2024 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.200/2024 OF NAYAMATHI POLICE,

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18593 CRL.A No. 853 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 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 AND FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(V), 3(1)(W), 3(2)(V-A) OF PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

¶24

THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

The appellant -accused No.5 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST Act’ for short) in Crime No.200 of 2024 of Nyamathi Police Station, registered 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 and 62 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'the BNS), 2023 and for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’) on the basis of the first information lodged by informant- Chythra.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18593 CRL.A No. 853 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Heard Sri.Raju C.N., learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri.Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶31

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶32

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶33

“Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of bail under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?”

¶34

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶35

R E A S O N S

¶36

The injured - informant has given first information regarding the incident, upon which, the FIR came to be registered for the offences as stated above. After investigation,

¶37

the charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offences against accused Nos.1 to 13. It is stated that the appellant was apprehended on 23.09.2024 and since then he is in judicial custody.

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18593 CRL.A No. 853 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

As per the charge sheet, the main assailants are accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.1 is the member of Grama Panchayath and accused No.2 is his son and they are influential persons. They were having motive to cause the death of the deceased and to assault CW1. Ofcourse, this appellant as well as co-accused being the supporters of accused No.1, joined hands with them in commission of the offences.

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellant has produced the copy of the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.337/2025 c/w Crl.A.No.482/2025, Crl.A.No.594/2025 and contended that accused Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 11 to 13 against whom similar allegations are made and are already enlarged on bail by the co ordinate Bench of this Court. This fact is not denied by the learned High Court Government Pleader. When the co-accused against whom similar allegations are made and are already enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, I do not find any reason to deny the benefit of parity to the appellant. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the appellant may be granted bail subject to conditions, which will take care

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18593 CRL.A No. 853 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

of the interest of the prosecution as well as the interest of the complainant and the witnesses.

¶45

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The appeal is allowed.

¶48

The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.200/2024 of Nyamathi Police Station, on obtaining the bond

¶49

in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶50

a). The appellant shall not commit similar offences.

¶51

b). The appellant shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶52

c). The appellant shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶53

If in case, the appellant violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18593 CRL.A No. 853 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the appellant and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the appellant on bail.

¶57

SD/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶58

BH

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Appaji @ Korama v. State by Nyamathi Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appaji @ Korama v. State by Nyamathi Police

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

Krishna Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kumara @ Mohan Kumara Vs State by Chikkamagalur Rural Police

The State of Karnataka Vs Lakshmisha

Taj Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mogannaiah @ Moganna Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandrasekhar Vs State of Karnataka