Sri Satisha Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri Satisha Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Appeal allowed in part: appellant No.1 (Satisha) enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of like sum, subject to conditions; the appeal/bail of appellant No.2 (Abhi @ Abhishek) stands rejected.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants (accused Nos.1 and 2), charge-sheeted for BNS and SC/ST (POA) Act offences in Crime No.200/2024, should be enlarged on bail notwithstanding the Trial Court's rejection of their bail application. +1 more

Court's answer

Appellant No.1 is enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties to the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to enumerated conditions (including not threatening prosecution witnesses, attending all hearings, and committing no other or similar offences till disposal).

Ratio / Principle

Having considered the overt-acts of the appellants, this Court held bail appropriate to be rejected in respect of accused No.2 (appellant No.2), so his appeal fails; and appropriate to allow the appeal in respect of appellant No.1 (accuse No.1).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (single judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S Rachaiaiah; decision dt. 20-08-2025; CRL.A No. 926 of 2025, U/S 14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015; NC: 2025:KHC:33019). Accused Nos.1 & 2 (Satisha and his son Abhi @ Abhishek) appealed against rejection of bail by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Davanagere (Spl.C.No.485/2024, order dt. 13.01.2025). Charges arise from Crime No.200/2024 of Nyamathi Police under ss.191(3), 329(4), 351(3), 118(1), 115(2), 109(1), 189(4), 103(1), 352, 190, 62 BNS and ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) SC/ST (POA) Act: complainant (respondent No.2, of Adi Karnataka community) alleged her husband was abused naming caste and stabbed by accused No.2 after he informed mining officers of illegal sand transportation from the river bed of Tungabadra; the husband died in hospital and Bharath, who intervened, was also injured. Having considered the overt-acts of the appellants, the Court allowed the appeal in part: appellant No.1 was enlarged on bail on a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of like sum (conditions: no threatening of prosecution witnesses, presence on all hearing dates, no other/similar offences till disposal); the appeal in respect of appellant No.2 was rejected. No precedents were cited or relied upon.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:33019 CRL.A No. 926 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 926 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))

BETWEEN:

SRI SATISHA

S/O SHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS MEMBER OF GRAM PACHAYATH AGRICULTURIST, R/OF

CHI KADADAKATTE VILLAGE NYAMATHI TALUK

DAVANAGERE DIST – 577 223

ABHI @ ABHISHEKH S/O SATISHA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/OF CHI KADADAKATTE VILLAGE NYAMATHI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 223 …APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. NARENDRA BABU B.K, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NYAMATHI POLICE

REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BENGALURU – 560 001

SMT CHYTHRA W/O SHIVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDENT OF MARIGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE KOTEHAL POST 577230. NYAMTHI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33019 CRL.A No. 926 of 2025

HC-KAR

(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

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 ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DAVAANAGERE, IN SPL.C.NO.485/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 191(3), 329(4), 351(3), 118(1), 115(2), 109(1), 189(4), 103(1), 352, 190, 62 OF BNS AND U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant who is arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.200/2024 of respondent – Police.

It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent No.2 has filed a complaint against the appellant on 18.09.2024 at about 8.45 P.M and they stated in the complaint that they belongs to Adi Karnataka community and she is having two daughters aged about four years and three years respectively. It is further stated that her husband stated to have informed mining officers that the appellants and others were illegally transporting the sand from the river bed without having any license or permit. The Police and others having learnt that the

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:33019 CRL.A No. 926 of 2025

HC-KAR

deceased is a root cause for lodging the complaint and stabbing them from transporting the sand, without hatched conspiracy.

On 15.09.2024, at about 1.15 P.M appellant and other shouted at Shivaraj and he was dragged out of the house and he was assaulted him by using filthy language by naming the caste. Further, the appellants and others took the said Shivaraj 100 meters away from his house. The accused No.2 namely Abhi @ Abhishek S/o Sathish stabbed with a knife on the left side of the chest. Consequently, her husband sustained grievous injury. In the mean time, Bharath S/o Ramesh tried to interfere to rescue the deceased. In the mean time, he was also stabbed. Hence, he was also injured. Thereafter, both were shifted to hospital for treatment. However, husband of the complainant died in the hospital.

Based on the complaint the respondent – Police have registered a case in Crime No.200/2024 and further conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:33019 CRL.A No. 926 of 2025

HC-KAR

However, the Investigating Officer is projected that it is a case of eye-witness. The overt-act of the appellants has not been specifically pleaded in the charge-sheet. Hence, they may be enlarged on bail by allowing the appeal.

Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for State vehemently opposed that the allegations of stabbing and instigation are made out against the appellants and their application has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. Since, the appellants committed heinous offence against the person who belongs to downtrodden community, application has to be rejected in order to secure the confidence in the mind of the eye-witness. Making such submissions, she prays to dismiss the appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, it appears from the record that the husband of the complainant stated to have informed the mining officials about the illegal transportation of sand from the river bed of Tungabadra, a raid was conducted by the officials against the appellant and others. As per the averments of the complaint quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant No.2 had stabbed with the knife and caused injuries. Both the

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:33019 CRL.A No. 926 of 2025

HC-KAR

husband of respondent No.2 and Bharath who is the friend of the deceased. Consequently, the husband of respondent No.2 died in the hospital and also it is stated that the appellant had scolded by naming the caste of the deceased. Having considered the overt-act of the appellants, it is appropriate to reject the bail in respect of accused No.2/appellant No.2 and allow the said appeal in respect of appellant No.1/accuse No.1. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed in-part.

ii. The appellant No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/with two sureties to the like sum of the satisfaction of the Trial Court on the following terms and conditions. However, the appeal against accused No.2 stands rejected. The conditions for granting the bail are enumerated as under:

a. The appellant shall not threaten the prosecution witness, the appellant shall be present on all hearing dates, without fail.

NC: 2025:KHC:33019 CRL.A No. 926 of 2025

6 -

HC-KAR

b. The appellant shall not commit any other offence or

similar offences till disposal of this appeal.

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

JS/NM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24