Karnataka High Court
B. Nagendra Kumar Alias Bandihatti Nagi ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2022
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100196/2022
BETWEEN:
B. NAGENDRA KUMAR ALIAS BANDIHATTI NAGI
S/O LATE SATYARAJU
AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. PLUMBING WORK,
R/O. NEAR PANJA MASZID, BANDIHATTI,
BALLARI 583101.
.. APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(THROUGH POLICE STATION)
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
DHARWAD - 580001.
2 . MANJU ALIAS MANJU NAIK , S/O. DASYA NAIK
AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. LABORER
R/O. OPP. FOREST QUARTERS,
BELAGAL ROAD RAMANJENEYA NAGAR
BALLARI 583101
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.
RESPONDENT NO.2 APPEARED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 (A) (2) OF SC AND ST
ACT, SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE BALLARI,
2
DATED 20.12.2021 ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN
SPL.CASE NO.658/2021 IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.104/2014
REGISTERED IN COWL BAZAR POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302, R/W SECTION 149 OF
IPC AND SECTION 3(1) (10) (11) OF SC/ST PA ACT, 1989, PENDING
TRIAL OF THE CASE BEFORE I ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE, BALLARI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.1 under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 for setting aside the order of dismissal of his bail petition by the learned Sessions Judge in Spl.Case No.658/2021 dated 20.12.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 504, 307, 302 and 114 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for brevity) and Section 3(1)(x)(xii) of SC and ST Act.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State.
3
Respondent No.2 appeared through video conference and orally objected the appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, the appellant was apprehending arrest by the police in respect of Crime No.104/2014 registered by the Cowl Bazar Police, Bellary, for having committed murder of one Ravi Nayak brother of respondent No.2 and subsequently, he was taken to custody. His bail petition came to be allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.101098/2015 dated 12.08.2015. Subsequently, the accused stated to be absconding and was not attending the Court. Thereafter, he was alleged to have surrendered before the police on 23.10.2020 and he was remanded to judicial custody. His bail application came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order under appeal. Hence, the appellant is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended, previously the appellant was granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and due to changed circumstances, the appellant was involved in another murder case where a case and counter cases 4 were registered between two groups of people. Therefore, he was not able to attend the Court and later he surrendered before the police and he is in custody for almost 1½ years. His wife is suffering from dialysis. Therefore, his presence is very much required for attending his wife for providing medical treatment. Hence, prayed for granting bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the appeal and contended that the appellant was absconding for a long period and if he is granted bail, he may further delay the process of trial. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Respondent No.2 Manju Naik who is the complainant before the police appeared along with mother and another brother Gopal Naik and seriously objected the appeal and contended that this appellant earlier murdered his brother Ravi Naik and subsequently, they also murdered another brother Ramesh Naik who is said to be a witness to the said case. Respondent No.2 further contended that the accused had never appeared before the Court after grant of bail and he is not allowing the witnesses to lead 5 evidence and he is also giving threat to the complainant and his family members and further contended that he has already committed murder of his two brothers i.e., Ravi and Ramesh and if he is released on bail, he may attack them also and therefore they are having fear of assault by the appellant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.
8. The point that arises for consideration is:
Whether the appellant has made out a case for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Spl.Court and to grant bail?
9. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.
10. Admittedly, the appellant was accused No.1 assaulted deceased Ravi Naik with machete and by throwing stone on the eye when the deceased Ravi Naik was proceeding on his motorcycle and committed murder along with other accused and subsequently all 6 the accused were arrested and are released on bail and the appellant was released on bail on 12.08.2015. It appears on of the gang member of this appellant namely Akash said to be murdered by the Ramesh Nayak who is younger brother of this respondent No.2. Therefore, nursing grudge, the appellant after coming out on bail has committed murder of Ramesh Naik and absconded. Charge sheet was split up against this accused and alter NBW was issued and therefore, he surrendered before the police on 23.10.2020 and thereafter he was remanded to judicial custody.
11. Of course the appellant has misused his earlier bail and he has committed further offence by murdering the brother of the deceased Ravi Naik and remained absconding without attending the Court as stated by respondent No.2.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant not produced the order sheet to show that this appellant continuously appeared without causing any obstruction or was regularly appearing without absconding. It appears this appellant is always misusing the bail and committing murder and there is two rival gang on committing murder of each other. Of course Ramesh Naik also committed 7 murder of one Akash who belong to the gang of the appellant. If the appellant is released on bail, there is every possibility of the appellant again attacking respondent No.2 and his family members are not ruled out and he may misuse the bail again. Respondent No.2 submits the evidence has already commenced and the accused is threatening him and witnesses not to give evidence against him.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if the appellant is granted bail, there is every possibility of tampering the witnesses, threatening the witnesses and committing further murders is not ruled out. Of course his wife is suffering from kidney dialysis and other ailment but that cannot be a ground for granting bail to him. There will be threat to his life also apart from which he may also commit murder of the witnesses. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv