Karnataka High Court
Bharath K N vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:21602
CRL.A No. 1608 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1608 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. BHARATH K N
S/O K B NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT I CROSS
VIDYA NAGAR
M G ROAD, GUBBI
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
PIN-252101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI. UMAKANTHA H.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GUBBI POLICE STATION
TUMKUR DISTRICT
Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY
SHOBHA C
Location: High STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Court of Karnataka
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560001.
2. MANOJKUMAR G N
S/O NARSIMHAMURTHY G C
@ KURIMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT OLD A K COLONY
GUBBI TOWN
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. RAVI KIRAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:21602
CRL.A No. 1608 of 2022
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE CRL.MISC.NO.1013/2022, DATED 28.07.2022 PASSED BY
THE HONBLE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, TUMAKURU AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND ENLARGE
THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.131/2022 OF RESPONDENT
GUBBI POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 109, 143, 147, 148, 302, 201, 212, 120(B) READ
WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT AND SECTION 3(1)(i)(2)(3)(4) OF THE KARNATAKA
CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 2000 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GUBBI
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused No.9 under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST (POA) Act'), for setting aside the order of dismissal of bail, dated 28.07.2022, passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, in Crl.Misc.No.1013/2022, whereby the trial Court rejected the bail in respect of the appellant in Cr.No.131/2020 registered by Gubbi police and charge sheeted for the offences punishable -3- NC: 2023:KHC:21602 CRL.A No. 1608 of 2022 under sections 109, 143, 147, 148, 302, 201, 212, 120(B) read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Later, Section 3(1)(i)(2)(3)(4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'KCOCA') has been added and now, the case is pending before the Principal City Civil Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-1).
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant- accused No.9 and the learned HCGP for Respondent No.1- State. Respondent No.2 remained absent even at 5.00 p.m.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of One - Manoj Kumar G.N., the son of the deceased Narasimhamurthy, the police registered a case on 15.06.2022. It is alleged in the complaint that on the date of incident, the deceased went out of the house at 12.00 noon and the complainant left Nelamangala to go to Bangalore. At about 1.00 p.m., the complainant received a phone call that his father has been done to death by the unknown persons. Immediately, the complainant went and saw his father, who was in the hospital. Later, it was revealed that the accused persons committed -4- NC: 2023:KHC:21602 CRL.A No. 1608 of 2022 murder along with the other persons. The police registered FIR and arrested the appellant on 24.06.2022 and he was remanded to the judicial custody. The bail petition of the appellant came to be rejected by the trial Court and hence, he is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the allegation against the appellant is that he had given information to accused No.1 regarding the movement of the deceased and in turn, accused Nos.1, 4 to 8 committed murder of the deceased. It is further contended that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru has granted bail to accused Nos.13 to 16. The learned counsel has further contended that absolutely, there is no material to show that the appellant-accused No.9 has committed the murder of the deceased, except giving information to accused No.1 regarding movement of the deceased. The learned counsel also contended that as per Section 19 of KCOCA, the statement can only be recorded by the Superintendent of Police but not the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In this case, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has recorded the statement, which is -5- NC: 2023:KHC:21602 CRL.A No. 1608 of 2022 not permissible. Therefore, the confession statement cannot be relied upon by this Court. The learned counsel also contended that appellant-accused No.9 is in custody for almost one year. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State has contended that the appellant- accused No.9 gave information to other accused regarding movement of deceased due to which the deceased was trapped and murdered by the said persons. It is further submitted accused No.14 gave supari to accused No.1, and, in turn, the other accused conspired and committed murder of the deceased and the accused persons are in custody. The allegations against the appellant-accused No.9 are not similar to that of the other accused persons. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records. The records reveal that previously, the police had not invoked Section 3 of KCOCA. Accused Nos.1 to 5 have said to be the syndicate for the purpose of Section 3 of -6- NC: 2023:KHC:21602 CRL.A No. 1608 of 2022 KCOCA. The allegation against appellant-accused No.9 is that he gave intimation to accused No.1 regarding the movement of the deceased and accordingly, accused Nos.1, 4 to 8 and 10 who are the assailants, committed the murder of deceased. Accused No.13 gave sim-card to accused No.12. Therefore, accused No.12 used the sim-card. Like wise, accused Nos.15 and 14 said to be given supari to accused No.1. Accused No.16 provided sim-card to accused No.1 and they have been granted bail.
7. Of course, as per the submission of learned High Court Government Pleader, the Deputy Superintendent of Police is the authorized person for recording the statement under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act, though he is not permitted to record the voluntary statement under Section 19 of KCOCA. The statement of appellant-accused No.9 has been recorded by Deputy Superintendent of Police on 24.06.2022, at that time, KCOCA was not invoked by the state. Such being the case, the question of recording the statement by the Superintendent of Police does not arise, but he is an authorised person to record the statement in SC/ST (POA) ACT.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:21602 CRL.A No. 1608 of 2022
8. Further, the co-accused persons having the similar allegations have been granted bail. Therefore, the appellant accused No.9 is also entitled for bail as he is not an actual assailant to commit murder of the deceased.
9. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
(a) The appeal is allowed.
(b) The order dated 28.07.2022, passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, in Crl.Misc.No.1013/2022, is herby set aside. The application is allowed.
(c) The Principal City Civil Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-1) is ordered to release the appellant on bail in Crime No.131/2022 registered by the respondent-Gubbi police, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
(ii) The appellant shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:21602 CRL.A No. 1608 of 2022
(iii) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;
(iv) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial Court;
(v) The appellant shall take trial without causing any delay.
Sd/-
JUDGE CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11