(Prayer: This Crl.A is filed u/S 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act-1989 praying to set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble II Addl. Dist. and Sessinos Judge Bangalore Rural at Bangalore dated 13.02.2024 in Spl.C.No.618/2023 in Cr.No.96/2023 of Soladevanahalli Police Station for the offence p/u/S 307, 302, 109, 114, 115 r/w 34 of IPC and for the offence p/u/S 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, pending on the file of II Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural at Bangalore in Spl.C. No.618/2023 release him on bail.

CAV Judgment

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 13.02.2024 passed in Special Case No.618 of 2023 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short "the trial Court").

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on the basis of the complaint filed by Gowtham, Soladevanahalli Police have registered the case in Crime No.96 of 2023 against accused 1 to 3 for the commission of offence under Sections 307, 302, 109, 114, 115 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SC/ST (PoA) Act").

3. The appellant had filed an application before the Trial Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of regular bail. The same came to be rejected by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the rejection of bail application, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent of the alleged offences. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He is a law abiding citizen and has not committed any offence as alleged by the complainant. He further submitted that the police have failed to record the statement of deceased for the reasons best known to them which is a serious lapse on the part of the investigating officer. It is further submitted that the injured might have succumbed to the miscarriage of medication during the treatment and because of the injury sustained by him. Hence, there is no such ingredient to attract Section 302 of IPC. At the most, it will attract provisions of Section 300 Part IV of IPC, which is not amounting to murder. Learned Counsel would further submitted that accused No.1 is in judicial custody from the date of his arrest i.e. 09th April, 2023. Since investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, appellant is no more required for custodial interrogation. Appellant/Accused No.1 already underwent judicial custody for more than one year and there are no specific or special reasons to keep the appellant in judicial custody. He further submitted that the statement of witnesses in the charge sheet are contradictory, which shows that much water has flown under the bridge between the date of incident and the recording of statement of the alleged eye-witness and they may be the planted witnesses for the purpose of this case. Moreover, there are ambiguities in the statements of alleged eye- witnesses and re-statement of the said witnesses have been recorded.

5. His further submission that, in the present case, the intention to cause the alleged death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several circumstances, and that the alleged weapon (cricket bat) used for committal of offence was not carried by the accused prior to quarrel, but was picked up from the spot after the usage of words by the deceased towards his mother. The alleged blow was not aimed at a vital part of the body and the force allegedly employed in causing the injury, was not excessive.

6. It is further submitted that the alleged act of the accused was in the course, but was in a spur of moment arising out of provocation. The alleged incident occurred by chance and there was no premeditation or pre-planned act. It was only on the grave and sudden provocation after uttering bad words towards the mother of the appellant. The cause for such provocation was in the heat of passion. The appellant did not inflict injuries and has not taken any undue advantage or has not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention. Relying on the entire charge sheet, he submits that that the intention is missing and the alleged assault on the victim is due to sudden provocation. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not followed the mandatory provisions of law or the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and the Investigating Officer has not intimated the accused as to the reason/grounds for arrest. He further submits that accused No.2 has been enlarged on bail in Crl.A. No.1597/2023 on 06.02.2024. Hence, the appellant is entitled for bail.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments to substantiate his arguments:

          i. AHMED MANSOOR AND OTHERS V. THE STATE REP. BY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4504/2025 @ SLP [CRL.] NO.198/2025 DECIDED ON 14.10.2025;

          ii. PANKAJ BANSAL v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.3051-3052/2023 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.9220- 21/2023 decided on 03.10.2023;

          iii. PRABIR PURKAYASTHA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) IN CRL. A. NOS.......OF 2024 ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO(S)......... OF 2024 (D. NO.42896/2023) DECIDED ON 07.02.2025;

          iv. VIHAAN KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER IN CRL. A. NO....... OF 2025 ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.13320/2024 DECIDED ON 07.02.2025;

          v. KASIREDDY UPENDER REDDY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS IN CRL. APPEAL NO.2808/2025 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.7746/2025 DECIDED ON 23.05.2025;

          vi. ASHISH KAKKAR v. UT OF CHANDIGARH IN CRL. APPEAL NO.1518/2025 @ SLP [CRL.] NO.1662/2025 DECIDED ON 25.03.2025;

          vii. V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT IN CRL. APPEAL NO.4011/2024 ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.3986/2024 DECIDED ON 26.09.2024;

          viii. HEMANTH DATTA @ HEMANTHA @ BABY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER IN W.P. NO.9302/2025 DECIDED ON 17.04.2025;

          ix. MIHIR RAJESH SHAH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER IN CRL. APPEAL NO.2195/2025 DECIDED ON 06.11.2025;

          x. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, RAJKOT v. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1171/2004 DECIDED ON 15.09.2008;

          xi. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT V. SUBHASH SHARMA IN CRL. APPEAL NO....... 2025 @ SLP (CRIMINAL) NO.1136/2023 DECIDED ON 21.01.2025.

8. Statement of Objections filed on behalf of the respondent-State. Sri R. Rangaswamy, learned High Court Government Pleader, would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the material on record and passed the impugned order and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. It is further submitted that C.W.1 has already been examined on 31.10.2025. Hence, and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

9. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and perusal of the materials, the following points would arise for consideration:

          i. Whether the appellant has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court?

          ii. What order?

10. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. On the basis of the complaint filed by Gowtham, Soladevanahali Police have registered the case in Crime No.96/2023 and submitted against accused 1 to 3 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 302, 109, 114, 115, read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

11. The accused was arrested on 09.04.2023. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted on 07.06.2023. In charge sheet, it is alleged as under:





12. On perusal of the entire materials placed before this Court, it is crystal clear that the accused was arrested on 09th April, 2023 and investigation has been completed and charge- sheet has also been filed. The appellant is not required for custodial interrogation. The accused has already undergone judicial custody for more than two years. The alleged weapon (cricket bat) used for alleged commission of offence, was not carried by the accused prior to quarrel and the same was picked up from the spot after hurling of words by the deceased towards the mother of the accused. Whether the commission of alleged offence comes under the provisions of Section 302 or under the provisions of Section 304 of Indian Penal Code has to be examined only after full-fledged trial. In this regard, there is some force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence and period of detention undergone by the accused in judicial custody till this day, I am of the opinion, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, that it is just and proper to allow this appeal with conditions. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

          i) Appeal is allowed;

          ii) Appellant/accused No.1 shall be released on bail on execution of self-bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

          iii) Appellant/accused No.1 shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses;

          iv) Appellant/accused No.1 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission;

          v) Appellant/accused No.1 shall appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing and shall co- operate for speedy trial.