SRI. LEPAKSHA @ LEPA v. STATE BY RURAL POLICE STATION, BHADRAVATHI

RURAL POLICE STATION, BHADRAVATHI, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 01.

2. SMT. VEDAVATHI W/O LATE SHANTHAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE BY OCCUPATION, R/O DODDERI VILLAGE, BHADARAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577301 (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT)) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/THE ACCUSED NO.1 ON - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6109 CRL.A No. 2394 of 2025 HC-KAR BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.5011/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI (IN BHADRAVATHI RURAL P.S. CR.NO.0015/2025) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 352, 351(2), 103(1), 3(5), 126(2) AND SEC. 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(V) OF SC AND ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015 AND U/S 3 AND 25(1B) OF THE INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959. THIS CRL.A, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant being accused No.1 has preferred this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 before this Court seeking grant of bail, and to release him from custody in Spl. Case No.5011/2025 pending on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga (sitting at Bhadravathi), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2), 103(1), 3(5), 126(2) and 55 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, 'BNS'), under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, 'the SC/ST Act') and under Sections 3 and 25(1B) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, on - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6109 CRL.A No. 2394 of 2025 HC-KAR the basis of the first information lodged by informant- Smt.Vedavati.

2. Heard Sri Sappannavar Basavaraj Shivappa, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. Sowmya R., learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and Sri K.A. Chandrashekara, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?” My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S

4. The FIR came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 4 on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Smt.Vedavati. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against them for the above said offences. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6109 CRL.A No. 2394 of 2025 HC-KAR

5. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that, two groups in the village were quarreling with one another very frequently. On the date of incident, there was the first incident where there was a quarrel, later again, on the same day, i.e. on 22.01.2025 at 8.45 p.m. the deceased Shanthakumar was proceeding towards his Arecanut garden on his motor cycle. Accused Nos.1 to 4 came near the electric transformer and waylaid him. The accused have abused him in filthy language referring to his caste, as he belongs to scheduled caste, and assaulted him with hands. Accused Nos.2 and 3, who were armed with long, instigated by accused No.1 assaulted the deceased and caused fatal injuries. In the meantime, CWs.1, 6, 9 and 11 came to the spot and shifted him to the hospital. But on his way to the hospital, the deceased Shanthakumar breathed his last.

6. The prosecution has cited as many as 54 witnesses, out of them, seven are eye witnesses. The statements of four eyewitnesses were recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 183 of BNSS. These witnesses have referred to the overt act committed by accused Nos.2 and 3, stating that, they were armed with longs and assaulted the deceased. It was - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6109 CRL.A No. 2394 of 2025 HC-KAR accused No.1, who is the main accused, as he is said to have the motive and instigated accused Nos.2 and 3 to cause the death of the deceased.

7. It is stated that, accused Nos.1 to 3 were having ill-will against the deceased as they suspected that the deceased informed about their ill-deeds to Panchayath officials, which led to the incident in question and death of the deceased.

9. After full-fledged investigation, the Investigating Officer found that accused Nos.1 to 4 were at the spot and the deceased was waylaid near electric transformer while proceeding on a motorcycle. It was accused Nos.2 and 3 who are armed with long and they assaulted the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained as many as 12 injuries, which include lacerations, abrasions, chopped wound, stabbed wound, contusion and incised wounds. Admittedly, this appellant was not armed with any weapon nor there is recovery of any weapon at his instance.

10. The appellant had filed Crl.A.No.1216/2025, seeking grant of bail. The same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 21.07.2025 by this Court. Thereafter, the present appeal - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6109 CRL.A No. 2394 of 2025 HC-KAR came to be filed. Even though the bail was sought on medical grounds, I do not find any support to enlarge the appellant on bail on medical grounds. But however, since the appellant was not armed with any weapon, and admittedly, he is not the author of the injuries caused to the deceased, and since there was no recovery of incriminating materials at the instance of the appellant, I am of the opinion that the appellant may be enlarged on bail subject to condition. Admittedly the appellant was apprehended on 24.01.2025 and his detention in custody till conclusion of the trial will infringe his right of life and liberty.

11. In view of the above, I answer the above point in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: (i) The appeal is allowed. ORDER (ii) The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Spl.C.No.5011/2025, pending on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga (sitting at Bhadravathi), on obtaining the bond 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: - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:6109 CRL.A No. 2394 of 2025 HC-KAR a). The appellant shall not commit similar offences. b). The appellant shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c). The appellant shall appear before the Court as and when required. 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. 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. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1