IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1014 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))

BETWEEN:

RAMACHANDRAPPA V.

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O VEERAPPA BYLAMARADHODDI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU – 560 083 CURRENTLY R/AT NO.351

5^TH MAIN ROAD

2^ND STAGE 3^RD BLOCK BASAVESHWARNAGARA Digitally signed by BANGALORE SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA KARNATAKA – 560 079 LAKSHMI … APPELLANT Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI.AIYAPPA K.G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RAMANAGARA RURAL POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001

2. CHANDU R.

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O MR.RAMESH R/AT NAGALAPURA VILLAGE CHIKKENAHALLI DHAKLE KALIANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK KARNATAKA – 562 159 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI.A.N.RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

14(A)(2) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES / SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.192/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA FOUND AT ANNEXURE-F.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 01.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

1. The appellant has filed this appeal seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.192/2025 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. Factual matrix of the case:

2. It is stated that on 26.10.2024, the de facto complainant along with other victims namely, Punith and Likith, had visited the farmhouse around 08.00 p.m. to spend their Diwali vacation. On the said day, around 10.30 p.m., the accused had barged into the said farmhouse and threatened to take the videograph of the women who were swimming in the swimming pool. The accused hurled verbal and physical abuses, threatened the de facto complainant, victims, and other fellow members. When the de facto complainant and the victims resisted such foul abuses, the respondent No.2 proceeded to assault one of the victims, namely Likith, with the huge stick. Consequently, his arm was broken. Further, the respondent No.2, in a fit of rage, proceeded to hit Mr. Punith with a stick on his head. As a result, the said Punith suffered head injury. The de facto complainant immediately dialled 100 i.e., Police helpline. The police arrived to the scene of occurrence, took the victims to the nearby hospital for treatment. Thereafter, Punith had succumbed to the injuries. Hence, a complaint came to be filed and FIR has been registered in Crime No.226/2024. After investigation, charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 103(1), 126(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS r/w Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’).

3. The accused persons were arrested and they were remanded to judicial custody on 28.10.2024. Subsequently, it was being extended from time to time based on the remand applications. However, the respondent No.1 - Police failed to appear and submit the remand application. Consequently, learned Sessions Judge did not extend the custody of the accused and released them on bail, as there was no remand application pending for consideration. The said order is impugned herein.

4. Heard Sri Aiyappa K.G., learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri A.N. Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court while granting bail has to consider the nature of accusations, severity of punishment and nature of the evidence in support of the accusations.

6. It is further submitted that, when th