Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Santhosh @ Shantharaju N S vs The State Of Karnataka By on 2 August, 2022

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 2 N D DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.372 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Sri Santhosh @ Shantharaju N.S.
S/o Shivananjeg owda
Aged about 35 years
Residing at Navile Villag e
Athag uru Hob li, Maddur Taluk
Mandya District-571476.
                                            ...Appellant
(By Sri Mahesh Kiran Shetty, Advocate for
 Sri G.E. Shashikumar, Advocate)

AND:

1.   The State of Karnataka by
     Kestur Police Station
     Maddur Taluk
     Mandya District-571476.
     Represented by
     State Pub lic Prosecutor
     Hig h Court Build ings
     Beng aluru-560001.

2.   Smt. Ambujakshi
     W/o Ravindra
     Aged about 36 years
     R/at Navile Villag e
     Athaguru Hob li, Maddur Taluk
     Mandya District-571476.
     (Implead ed respondent no.2,
      Vid e ord er d ated 23.03.2022)
                                        ...Respondents
                                   :: 2 ::


(By Sri K.Nag eshwarapp a, HCGP for R1;
 Sri H.C. Roshan, Advocate for R2)

       This    Criminal      Appeal      is    filed   under     Section
14(A)(2)      praying       to   set   aside    the    ord er    on   bail
application d ated 17.11.2021, passed by the Hon'ble
V Addl. Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Mandya in
Spl. Case No.65/2021.


       This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission
this d ay, the Court d elivered the following:

                             JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed under section 14(A) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ['SC/ST (POA) Act' for short]. Appellant is accused no.2 in Spl. Case No.65/2021 on the court of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya.

2. Heard Sri. Mahesh Kiran Shetty for Sri. G.E. Shashi Kumar, counsel for the appellant, Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and Sri. H.C.Roshan, counsel for respondent no.2.

:: 3 ::

3. Appellant and other accused are facing trial for the offences punishable under sections 109, 143, 120B, 302 and 201 of IPC and section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act r/w 149 IPC. Investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Since the trial court rejected the appellant's application for bail under section 439 Cr.P.C., this appeal has been preferred.

4. Perusal of the charge sheet shows that the enemity between accused no.1 and the deceased was the reason for the killing of the deceased viz., Ravindra, who was a practicing advocate at Mandya. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. According to prosecution, CW-3 has been cited to prove the last seen theory. His statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded, but perusal of the same does not indicate that he saw the accused being with the deceased. Anyway it is a matter of trial and trial :: 4 ::

court has to take a decision based on evidence. According to the learned counsel for respondent no.2, blood stained clothes might have been recovered from the appellant, but recovery of blood stained clothes alone is not the deciding factor in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Added to this, accused no.4 belongs to scheduled caste. Therefore the very registration of FIR under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act does not appear to be correct. Caste based attack is not forth coming. This court has already granted bail to accused no.4. The main allegation is that accused no.1 engaged accused no. 2 to 6 for eliminating the deceased. Accused no.4 has been admitted to bail and accused no.2 also stands on the same footing. For all these reasons, appellant is also entitled to claim bail. Therefore the order of the trial court is set aside. Application under section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant is allowed. Hence the following:
:: 5 ::
ORDER Appeal is allowed.
The order passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya dated 17.11.2021 in Spl.C.No.65/2021 on the application of the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is set aside. The said application is allowed.
The appellant is admitted to bail on obtaining from him a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellant 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 :: 6 ::
(Kesthur Police Station) once in 15 days, preferably on 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 him, the same will be considered for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE sd