Facts
The appellant, Accused No. 1, was arrested on 4 September 2024 in Crime No. 112/2024 of Kanakapura Town Police Station and remained in judicial custody.
Source reference: p. 3–6The case arose from allegations of assault and offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Source reference: p. 3–6After filing of the charge sheet, the appellant’s bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), was rejected by the Special Judge.
Source reference: p. 3–6He appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, relying on his gunshot injury, his bedridden father’s need for care, financial hardship, and the release on bail of co-accused.
Source reference: p. 3–6The prosecution material included allegations that the appellant attacked CW.2 with a long, causing complete amputation of CW.2’s left forearm, and witness statements recorded under Section 183 BNSS.
Source reference: p. 11–12Issues
1. Whether the appellant had established grounds for interference with the Special Judge’s order rejecting bail.
Source reference: p. 6Law Applied
The appeal was considered under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, which provides for an appeal against an order of the Special Court, and in the context of the bail application made under Section 483 BNSS.
Source reference: p. 2–3The Court assessed whether the material disclosed a prima facie case and considered the gravity of the alleged offence, the injury to the victim, and the appellant’s pending criminal cases when determining whether to interfere with the bail refusal.
Source reference: p. 11–13No precedent was cited.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court found prima facie material implicating the appellant, including witness statements and medical evidence recording complete amputation of CW.2’s left forearm, described as a grievous injury.
Source reference: p. 11–12It considered the seriousness of the alleged offence and the appellant’s pending criminal cases, and concluded that the Special Judge had properly assessed the record.
Source reference: p. 11–13The appellant’s personal and medical grounds and the release of co-accused did not persuade the Court to grant bail.
Source reference: p. 5–6, 11–13Holding
The Court answered the issue against the appellant and dismissed the criminal appeal, leaving the order rejecting bail undisturbed.
It separately directed the Registry to notify the concerned jail authority to provide the appellant with suitable medical treatment.
Source reference: p. 13Acts & Sections Cited
17 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19891
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232
Original Court PDF
HARSHA R @ KAIMAvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
