CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ajay S/O. Tippanna Hanchinamani vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 27 February 2025 · Citation: (2025) 02 KAR CK 0915

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Nagaprasanna, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 320 · Prisons Act, 1894 — Section 643
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 100070 Of 2025 (U/S 14 A(2) Of SC & ST ACT)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 461 words

Hemant Chandangoudar, J

1.

The appellant, who is facing investigation for offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 352, 351(3), and 351(2) read with Section 190 of BNS, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is before this Court seeking relief.

2.

The prosecution alleges that on 1.1.2025, the complainant, along with his mother and brother, was in the house when his brother stepped out. The brother then telephoned his mother to inform her that, near a mosque, someone was beating him and asked her to rescue him. His mother sent the complainant to the spot, where he observed that about 10 to 15 persons, restraining his brother, were abusing him in filthy language with reference to his caste and assaulting him with their hands. The specific allegation against Accused No.7 is that he assaulted the complainant’s brother with his hands.

3.

Heard were the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1 (the State), and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

4.

The complainant’s brother, who allegedly sustained injuries from the assault, has been discharged after receiving treatment. The specific allegation against the appellant/accused No.7 is that he assaulted the complainant’s brother with his hands. There was no use of a deadly weapon in the assault. Accordingly, Accused No.7 is not required for further custodial interrogation. The alleged incident took place on 1.1.2025, and the prosecution alleges that the weapon used in the assault was recovered from Accused No.1. Therefore, the petition is allowed.

5.

In view of these circumstances, the appellant has made out a prima facie case for the grant of bail. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed.

ii) The appellant/accused No.7 is enlarged on bail in Old Hubballi Police Station Crime No.01/2025 pending on the file of learned II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad and Special Court for trial of the offences under the POCSO Act and SC & ST (POA) Act for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 352, 351(3), 351(2) read with Section 190 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, subject to following conditions:

a) The appellant/accused No.7 shall furnish indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.One lakh with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

b) He shall appear before the Court as and when required.

c) He shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.

d) He shall not get involved in similar offences.

e) He shall not leave the territorial limits of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.