Karnataka High Court
Sri Manikandan K vs State By Nandini Layout P S on 11 July, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:26824
CRL.A No. 855 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 855 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI MANIKANDAN K
S/O KARPUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT
C/O RAJU HOUSE
50 FEET ROAD
NEAR POLICE CHOWK
LAGGERE
BENGALURU - 560 058.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HARISH PRABHU S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA NANDINI LAYOUT P S
MURTHY RAJASHRI
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-01.
2. SMT. PUSHPA
W/O LATE RAVI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT
OPPOSITE TO SHIVA TEMPLE ROAD
LAGGERE MAIN ROAD
CHOWDESHWARINAGAR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:26824
CRL.A No. 855 of 2024
LAGGERE
BENGALURU - 560 058.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXX
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-71)
BENGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.271/2024 DATED 27.01.2024
AND GRANT BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN SPL.C.NO.1752/2023
ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.154/2023 REGISTERED BY NANDHINI
LAYOUT P.S., RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
120B AND 302 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by accused No.5, praying to set-aside the order dated 27.01.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.271/2024 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder, the bail petition of this appellant - accused No.5 sought in respect of Crime No.154/2023 of Nandini Layout Police Station, pending in Special Case No.1752/2023 for the offences under Sections 120B, 302 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the IPC") -3- NC: 2024:KHC:26824 CRL.A No. 855 of 2024 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act"), came to be rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.5 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has remained absent and unrepresented.
3. Case of the prosecution is that; on 24.05.2023, husband of the complainant had been to Sri.Krishnamurthy's house for the birthday function at about 7.45 pm, and returned home at 9.45 pm. Thereafter, he had informed her that during the cake cutting in the birthday function, he had altercations with Sri.Manju, Sri.Nagaraj @ Spot Nagar, and others Sri.Gopi, Sri.Kiran and Sri.Mani. It is further stated that Sri.Manju was calling her husband continuously and he told that he will come, and went towards 50 feet road. Thereafter, at about 12.10 am., on 25.05.2023, her husband's friend -4- NC: 2024:KHC:26824 CRL.A No. 855 of 2024 Sri.Narasimhamurthy came to their house and informed that Sri.Manju and his friends have assaulted her husband and killed him at the spot and the complainant went to the said spot, saw the dead body of her husband and there were injuries on his neck, chest and left portion of his stomach etc., Thereafter, she filed a complaint. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 302, 120B r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant - accused No.5 came to be arrested on 28.05.2023 and he is in judicial custody. He filed the bail petition and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.5 would contend that accused Nos.6, 7 and 8 have been granted bail by this Court by order dated 20.12.2023 and therefore, this appellant - accused No.5 is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. He contends that there is no nexus between this appellant - accused No.5 -5- NC: 2024:KHC:26824 CRL.A No. 855 of 2024 and the other accused and the deceased. Age of the appellant - accused No.5 is 23 years and there is a huge difference in the age of the other accused and the appellant - accused No.5. Presence of the eye witnesses at the spot and they witnessing the incident from a distance, appears to be doubtful. The alleged incident had taken place regarding quarrel at the birthday party. As the charge sheet is filed, the appellant - accused No.5 is not required for the custodial interrogation. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to appellant - accused No.5.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State would contend that on perusal of Column No.17 of the charge sheet, serious overt acts are alleged against this appellant - accused No.5 assaulting the deceased with dragger on his neck, twice. CWs.15, 20 and 21 are the eye witnesses and they have stated the overt acts of this appellant - accused No.5 assaulting the deceased with dragger. The post-mortem -6- NC: 2024:KHC:26824 CRL.A No. 855 of 2024 report would indicate eighteen injuries sustained by the deceased and out of them, three injuries were on the neck. If the appellant - accused No.5 is granted bail, there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the impugned order and the other charge sheet materials placed on record.
7. On perusal of Column No.17 of the charge sheet, it would indicate that on 24.05.2023, at about 11.15 pm., the deceased Sri.Ravi told accused Nos.1 and 2 that he will take revenge against them. At that time, accused No.5 - the appellant herein, took the dragger from accused No.2 and assaulted on the neck of the deceased Sri.Ravi and at that time, accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 have dragged the deceased in front of Halli Ruchi hotel and at that time, accused Nos.6 and 7 assaulted the deceased Sri.Ravi with their hands and legs. At that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 held the deceased Sri.Ravi and accused No.1 -7- NC: 2024:KHC:26824 CRL.A No. 855 of 2024 took the dragger which was with accused No.5 and assaulted the deceased Sri.Ravi on his stomach. Accused No.3 took the said dragger and assaulted on the right cheek of the deceased and also assaulted on his stomach and accused No.4 assaulted the deceased Sri.Ravi with the same dragger on his stomach. At that time, the deceased Sri.Ravi fell down and this appellant - accused No.5 with the same dragger assaulted on the neck of the deceased on two places. At that time, accused Nos.2 and 5 told that still he is alive and asked to put stone on him. At that time, accused No.3 took size stone and put it on the chest of the deceased Sri.Ravi. Thereafter, accused No.2 also took the stone and put it on the left hand of the deceased. CWs.11, 15, 20 and 21 are the eye witnesses to the incident. CW11 has specifically stated the overt acts of this appellant - accused No.5 assaulting the deceased with the dragger on his neck. The post-mortem report indicate that the deceased has sustained eighteen injuries and out of them, there are three injuries on the neck of the deceased.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:26824 CRL.A No. 855 of 2024
8. Considering all these aspects, there is a prima facie case against this appellant - accused No.5 for the offences alleged against him. If the appellant - accused No.5 is granted bail, there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses. There are no grounds made out for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50