Karnataka High Court
Sunil @ Masale vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17 T H DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1412 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. Sunil @ Masale
S/o Sidd araju
Aged about 24 years
Residing at I Cross
Indiranagara, Bid ad i town
Ramanag ara Taluk and District
Pin-562 109.
2. Sridhara @ Kend a
S/o Kullegowda
Aged about 31 years
Resid ent of Ittanahalli Kopp alu
Kirug avalu Hobli
Mavalli Taluk, Mandya District
Pin-571 430.
...Appellants
(By Sri A.N. Rad hakrishna, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
By Bidadi Police, Bid adi
Represented by the
State Pub lic Prosecutor
Hig h Court Build ings
Bang alore-560 001.
2. Smt. Sharad a
W/o. Late Kumar V.
Aged about 29 years
:: 2 ::
R/o Muthurayanagudipalya
Villag e, Bidadi Hobli
Ramanag ara Taluk
Ramanag ara District.
...Respondents
(By Sri K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1;
Sri N. Srid har, Advocate for R2 - Absent)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act Cr.P.C. praying to
enlarg e them on bail, in Cr. No.158/2021 of Bidadi
Police for offence punishable und er Section 143, 147,
148, 302, 201-B, 212 read with Section 149 of IPC
and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act now pending
on the file of the learned I Ad ditional District and
Sessions Judge, Ramanag ara.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission
this d ay, the Court d elivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri A.N.Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.
2. This is an appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ['SC/ST Act' :: 3 ::
for short]. The appellants are accused No.5 and 6. By order dated 24.08.2021, the court below rejected their application for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Hence this appeal.
3. The prosecution case is that on 04.05.2021, in between 8.00 and 8.15am, pursuant to conspiracy among the accused, one Kumar was killed. The motive appears to be that the deceased did not share the commission amount with accused No.1 and therefore accused No.1 conspired with other accused for eliminating Kumar.
4. From the FIR itself it becomes clear that the incident might have taken place in the background of monetary transaction between the deceased and accused No.1 and not in connection with the offence under the provisions of Atrocities Act is forthcoming.
:: 4 ::
5. So far as the statement of Venkataramu, the brother of deceased is perused, what appears is that the first appellant i.e., accused No.5 was standing near the car and that his statement does not disclose that he inflicted injuries to deceased. Moreover according to the appellants' counsel, the first appellant is mentally insane. On 02.08.2022, the Government Pleader was directed to obtain report from NIMHANS, where the first appellant had taken treatment. Today, learned Government Pleader produces a report which is to the effect that the first appellant was suffering from mental disorder and was taking treatment at NIMHANS. The Psychiatrist has observed that though there is improvement, still the appellant No.1 is not completely cured of his mental disorder. For these reasons, appellant No.1 can be admitted to bail.
6. So far as appellant No.2 is concerned, there are sufficient materials against him :: 5 ::
indicating his involvement in the commission of offence. In this view, the appeal cannot be entertained so far as appellant No.2 is concerned as there are materials against him. Therefore from the above discussions, I find a case to partly allow the appeal. Hence the following:
ORDER Appeal is allowed in part.
The order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara dated 24.08.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.583/2021 on the application of appellant No.1 under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is set aside. The said application in so far as it relates to appellant No.1/accused No.5 is allowed.
The appeal stands dismissed insofar as appellant No.2/accused No.6 is concerned.
The appellant No.1 is admitted to bail on obtaining from him a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) and :: 6 ::
providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellant No.1 is also subjected to following conditions:-
i. He shall not tamper with the evidence collected by the investigating officer and threaten the witnesses.
ii. He shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial.
iii. Till conclusion of the trial, the appellant shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police Station once in 15 days, preferably on a Sunday between 9 am and 12 noon.
iv. He shall not get involved in any other criminal case/s in future. In case of any FIR is registered against them, the same will be considered for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kmv/-