SRI. VEDHAMURTHY G vs STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
CRL.A No.1647 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 06 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1647 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SRI. VEDHAMURTHY G
S/O GIRISHA D.P.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.303, GLOBAL VISTA APARTMENT,
PATTANAGERE MAIN ROAD,
R.R. NAGARA, BENGALURU-560098
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
DODDAYACHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BHOOKANAKERE HOBLI,
K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571426
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
DCRE POLICE STATION,
K.R. PETE RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. SRI. JAYARAMU M.R.
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT MAMBHAHALLI VILLAGE,
KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA-571426
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP. FOR R1,
SRI. HARIPRASAD M. B., ADV. FOR R2.)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
CRL.A No.1647 of 2026
CRL.A. FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT
THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2026 ON BAIL APPLICATION
FILED BY THE ACCUSED / APPELLANT U/S 483 OF BNSS
2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 14.10.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal against
the order dated 22.09.2026 passed in Crime No.251 of 2026 by
the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (for short
the "trial Court").
2. Brief facts, leading to this appeal are that on the basis
of the complaint filed by Sri Jayaram M.R. s/o late Ramaiah,
K.R. Pete Rural Police have registered case in Crime No.251 of
2026 against the accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment
Act, 2015 and submitted FIR to the Court on 05.09.2026. The
accused was arrested on 06.09.2026 and produced before the
Court and was remanded to judicial custody. Application was
- 3 -
CRL.A No.1647 of 2026
filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, which came to be
rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same,
appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. The appellant has urged following grounds:
That the appellant/accused is innocent and the
complainant police have falsely implicated him in the above
case. It is submitted that the appellant/ accused, neither
directly nor indirectly, was involved in the offence. It is
submitted that it is relevant to note that, the accused/appellant
has not scolded any individual in the social media. It is
submitted that the accused/appellant has expressed his view
with regard to the reservation of caste. Except such expression
about the reservation in caste, there is no other incriminating
material to attract the trail against the appellant/ accused. It is
submitted that, neither of the Sections of Atrocities mentioned
in the F.I.R., attract to the appellant/accused and neither of the
Sections are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In
the remand application, the respondent No.1 police have shown
that there are three similar cases against the very same
accused/appellant in different police stations with regard to the
Atrocities Act. Among them Spl.C.No.255/2025 is registered
against the parents of accused/appellant and there is no role of
- 4 -
CRL.A No.1647 of 2026
the accused in the said case. Further, in Crime No.267/2025
registered by the R.R. Nagar Police under Section 299 BNS,
2023 is a previous case and accused has been enlarged on bail
in the said case. Further, Crime No. 488/2026 registered by
the Hebbagodi Police Station is a replica of the Crime No.251
registered by the Respondent No. No.1 police with same set of
facts and circumstances. Therefore, the Respondent No.1-
Police have intentionally targeted the accused/appellant into
the web of crime and have labeled him as a 'habitual offender',
which is totally false. The accused/appellant is a Software
Engineer by Profession and his career will be spoiled if he is in
judicial custody. The appellant/accused undertakes that, he
will not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner. The
appellant/accused is the sole bread earner of his family having
wife and two daughters, aged 06 years and 1½ years. Till the
appellant's guilt is proved by the prosecution in a full-fledged
trial, the appellant is innocent and is entitled for bail. If the
prosecution proves its case the appellant will face the
consequences in the trial. The appellant/accused is ready and
willing to abide by any condition this Court may impose.
4. Respondent No.2 appeared through his Counsel and
filed statement of objection in which it is stated as under:
- 5 -
CRL.A No.1647 of 2026
Respondent No. 2 is the first informant in Crime
No.251/2026 of K.R. Pete Rural Police Station (now
investigated by the DCRE Police Station, Mandya) and belongs
to the Adi Karnataka community, a Scheduled Caste. He is a
"victim" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(ec) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, and is entitled as of right to notice of, and to be heard in
the present bail proceeding under Sections 15A(3) and 15A(5)
of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, which are mandatory as held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in HARIRAM BHAMBHI v.
SATYANARAYAN. It is submitted that the appeal is devoid of
merit, is founded on suppression and statement of material
facts, and is liable to be dismissed in limine. Every averment in
the memorandum of appeal that is not specifically admitted
herein is denied as false. This is a statutory appeal under
Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act against a reasoned
order of the Special Court refusing bail. The appellant has not
pointed out any illegality, perversity or non-consideration of
relevant material in the impugned order dated 22.09.2026.
The learned Special Judge has considered every factor relevant
to the grant of bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in PRASANTA KUMAR SARKAR v. ASHIS CHATTERJEE, viz. the
existence of a prima facie case, the nature and gravity of the
- 6 -
CRL.A No.1647 of 2026
accusation, the antecedents of the accused, the likelihood of
repetition of the offence, the apprehension of tampering with
evidence and influencing witnesses, and the stage of
investigation. A well-reasoned discretionary order calls for no
interference in appeal. The appeal is filed within four days of
the impugned order, without any change in circumstances. The
learned Special Judge expressly reserved liberty to the
appellant to move afresh, only upon a change in circumstance.
No such change is pleaded or exists. The appeal is a mere re-
agitation of the very grounds that were considered and
rejected. It is further submitted that reference to Section 483
of the BNSS, 2023 in the cause title is mis-conceived. Where
an offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act is alleged and the Special
Court has refused bail, the only remedy provided by Parliament
is an appeal under Section 14-A(2), which opens with a non-
obstante clause. The appellant cannot invoke the original bail
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023 in combination with the statutory appeal so as to seek a
fresh consideration de novo. The scope of this appeal is
confined to testing the legality and propriety of the impugned
order.
- 7 -
CRL.A No.1647 of 2026
4.1. Further, it is submitted the appellant has suppressed
the material facts. He has suppressed the Crime No. 233 of
2026 registered against him. The appellant had made false
statement that he has no role in Special case No.255/2025.
Further, it is stated that the respondent No.2 has made out a
prima facie case against the accused and the investigation is
not completed. The appellant was arrested on 06.09.2026. In
his voluntary statement, he has disclosed that he recorded the
video himself while seated in a car on Bengaluru-Mysuru Road
and uploaded it to the social media. The Car bearing
registration No.KA-53/C-8852 and his Samsung mobile phone
have been seized. The appellant is a habitual offender, and he
has repeated commission of similar offences. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the criminal
antecedents of an accused, and his potential to repeat the
offence, must be weighed before bail is granted and that
ignoring them, vitiates the exercise of discretion (NEERU
YADAV v. STATE OF UP; ASH MOHAMMAD v. SHIV RAJ SINGH;
SUDHA SINGH v. STATE OF UP). The appellant's videos have
provoked protests by Dalit and progressive organizations across
the State and complaints continue to be received from different
parts of Karnataka. The learned Special Judge has found that
the appellant's acts are causing disharmony between different
- 8 -
CRL.A No.1647 of 2026
sections of society and hindrance to public tranquility.
Releasing the appellant at this stage, carries a real risk of
renewed provocation and of breach of public order.
Respondent No.2 is an elderly member of schedule caste
community residing in the village in K.R. Pete Taluk, where the
applicant's family is native and influential. The learned special
Judge has found that the appellant is strong in money and
muscle power and that there is every chance of witness being
tampered with. Section 15A(1) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, casts a
duty on the State and on Courts to protect victims and
witnesses against intimidation, coercion and inducement.
Appellant is a highly qualified software professional and also
has the opportunity to leave the country. His presence for
investigation and trial cannot be secured by mere undertakings.
The trial Court has passed a well-reasoned order and absolutely
there are no grounds to interfere with the same. On all these
grounds, it is sought to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have examined the material placed before this Court.
On the basis of the complaint, K.R. Pete Police have registered
a case in Crime No.251 of 2026 against the accused for the
offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), (u) and (v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
- 9 -
CRL.A No.1647 of 2026
Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. The alleged offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The trial Court
has rejected the bail application on the ground that the accused
is a Software Engineer; there is apprehension of the
prosecution that the appellant/accused is capable of destroying
the digital evidence against him. Further, the trial Court has
mentioned other cases registered against the present appellant
in Crime No.255/2026, 488/2026 and 267/2025. The accused
is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest, ie.
06.09.2026. Mere registration of cases against the accused is
not a ground to reject the bail application. Though cases are
registered against the present appellant/accused, same are not
tried and appellant is not convicted for any offences alleged
against him.
6. The Investigating Officer has already submitted the
charge sheet against the accused for offences punishable under
Sections 352, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r)
and (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. The accused is not
required for any further investigation.
7. Considering the nature and gravity of offence and
keeping in mind the decisions relied upon by both the learned
- 10 -
CRL.A No.1647 of 2026
counsels, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to allow
this appeal on stringent conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to
pass the following:
O R D E R
i. Appeal is allowed;
ii. Impugned Order dated 22.09.2026 passed in
Crime No.251 of 2026 by the V Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, is set
aside. Consequently, application filed under
Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is allowed;
iii. Appellant shall be released on bail upon
executing the self-bond for Rs.50,000/- with
one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction
of the trial Court;
iv. Appellant shall not tamper or threaten the
prosecution witnesses in any manner;
v. The appellant shall not indulge in any similar
offences;
- 11 -
CRL.A No.1647 of 2026
vi. If the appellant violates any of the bail
conditions, the State/Victim are at liberty to
file necessary application before the trial Court
for cancellation of bail;
vii. If such application is filed for cancellation of
bail, the trial Court shall provide an
opportunity to the accused/appellant and
thereafter, shall proceed with the case in
accordance with law.
Registry is directed to send copy of this Order to the
concerned Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn