Shri Ravi Alias Ravindra Wader S/O Basavantappa Wader, Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 PRAING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2025 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN CRL. MISC. NO.1321/2025, WITH RESPECT TO THE APPELLANT /ACCUSED NO.1, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 115(2), 76, 352 R/W 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT /ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL (REGULAR BAIL) IN CRIME NO.109/2025 OF KULAGOD POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, REGISTERED DATED 08/09/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 115(2), 76, 352 R/W 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶28

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

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC-D:203 CRL.A No. 100731 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶34

Heard Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath, for Sri.M.V.Hiremath, for appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader-Sri.Jairam Siddi, for respondent No.1.

¶35

Respondent No.2 is served but remains

¶36

unrepresented.

¶37

The appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (for short ‘the Act’), seeking following relief:

¶38

“WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to;

¶39

a) Set aside the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in Crl. Misc. No.1321/2025, with respect to the Appellant /accused No.1, for the offence punishable under section 115(2), 76, 352 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶40

b) Enlarge the Appellant/accused No.1 on bail (regular bail) in Crime No.109/2025 of Kulagod Police Station, Belagavi, registered dated 08/09/2025 for the offence punishable under section 115(2), 76, 352 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC-D:203 CRL.A No. 100731 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶45

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

¶46

A complaint came to be lodged before the Kulgod Police Station by respondent No.2, contending that on 27.07.2025 there was an altercation at about 03.00 p.m. and again on 31.08.2025, there was a further quarrel between respondent No.2 and the appellant, wherein the appellant have allegedly abused the complainant party by taking the name of their caste in filthy language and assaulted them with sickle.

¶47

After registering the case in Crime No.109 of 2025, the Police conducted detailed investigation and filed a charge sheet against the appellant.

¶48

Attempt made by the appellant to obtain an order of bail is turned down by the learned Special Judge. Thereafter, the appellant is before this Court.

¶49

Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal vehemently contented that the wound certificate collected by the investigating agency, which forms part of the

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:203 CRL.A No. 100731 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

charge sheet, would make out a case that the complainant party have not suffered any grievous injury and that the incident occurred at the spur of the moment and that the appellant have cooperated with the investigation and therefore continuation of the appellant in judicial custody is no longer warranted and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶53

Per contra , Sri.Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader, reiterating the contentions urged in the statement of objections and contented that the appellant have high-handedly picked up a quarrel with the complainant party and assaulted them with a sickle, with an intention to take away the life of the complainant, as could be seen from the complaint averment itself on 27.07.2025 and per chance, the complainant survived.

¶54

These aspects of the matter would expose the gravity of the situation and there is possibility of threat to the complainant party, if the appellant is enlarged on bail. He would further contend that the case is based on eye-witnesses and if the appellant is enlarged on bail there is a threat to them and therefore sought for rejection of the appeal.

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC-D:203 CRL.A No. 100731 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶59

On such perusal of the material on record, it is pertinent to note that in the wound certificate collected and it has been mentioned that there is a swelling and tenderness on the right shoulder, which resulted in restriction of the movement of lift of the right arm. There is no fracture. As such, prima facie the injury cannot be termed as grievous as defined under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶60

It is a matter for trial. The fact remains that the injured is now hale and healthy. The appellant has cooperated with the investigation and having regard to the fact that charge sheet is filed, continuation of the accused No.1/appellant in custody in custody is no longer warranted.

¶61

Other apprehensions of the prosecution can be met, with including the victim protection, by imposing suitable and stringent conditions.

¶62

Accordingly, the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(i) The appeal allowed.

¶65

7 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:203 CRL.A No. 100731 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

(ii) The appellant is enlarged on bail by taking a bond in a sum of ₹1,00,000/- with two suitees for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶68

(iii) The appellant shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶69

(iv) The appellant shall attend the court regularly.

¶70

(v) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of Belagavi District without prior permission.

¶71

Violation of any one of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶72

Sd/(V.SRISHANANDA)

¶73

RHR/-CT-CMU