Allowed

Shivamurthy @ Murthy v. Sate of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2021CRL.A/1614/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by an accused charged under the SC/ST (POA) Act and IPC. The court set aside the impugned bail refusal order, granting bail to the appellant on grounds of parity with co-accused due to discrepancy in the injury witness's report.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside; the appellant was enlarged on bail with appeal bond, sureties, attendance, and non-tampering conditions.

Shivamurthy @ Murthy Vs Sate of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1614 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHIVAMURTHY @ MURTHY S/O. SHYAMANAIKA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O. MUDDENAHALLI HONNAVALLI HOBLI-572 217.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. VIKYATH B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BY HONNAVALLI P.S. REP. BY S.P.P.

¶14

HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

PUNEETH NAIK

¶16

S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/O. HALKURIKE VILLAGE HONNAVALLI HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK-572 217.

¶17

YOGEESH NAIK S/O. LAKSHMANA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶18

¶19

R/O. HALKURIKE VILLAGE HONNAVALLI HOBLI

¶20

TIPTUR TALUK-572 217. … RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. LEENA C. SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP FOR R.1; R.2 AND R.3 ARE SERVED.)

¶22

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST(POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1060/2021 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BIAL IN CR.NO.45/2021 OF HONNAVALLI P.S., ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 326, 341, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r), (s) AND 3(2)(va) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT.

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned HCGP for respondent-State.

¶26

Learned HCGP submits that notice of the appeal has been served on the complainant on 27.10.2021. However, there is no representation.

¶27

¶28

This is an appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Amendment Act, 2015 [for short "SC and ST (POA) Act"] praying to set aside the order dated 29.09.2021 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru in Crl.Misc.P.No. 1060/2021, rejecting the application for bail filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶29

Charge sheet has been filed against accused Nos.1 to 5 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 326, 341, 504, 506 R/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC and ST [POA] Act. The appellant is arraigned as accused No.3.

¶30

In brief, the case of the prosecution is that, on account of previous enmity, on 11.05.2021 at about 8.00 p.m. while C.W.1 and Yogish Naika belonging to Scheduled Caste, were proceeding along with C.Ws.2 and 3 near Kallleshwara Swamy temple, Halkurike village, accused

¶31

¶32

Nos.1 to 5 having formed an unlawful assembly, picked up quarrel with them and abused in filthy language, referring to the caste of C.W.1 and accused No.1 assaulted him with a repiece patti on his head two to three times and accused No.2 also assaulted him with the same repiece patti on his head and legs, accused No.3 assaulted with stone and accused Nos.4 and 5 assaulted with hands etc.

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that as per history furnished by injured Yogish Naika, he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. Therefore, contends that the entire allegations are false and the appellant herein is falsely implicated.

¶34

The learned HCGP contends that apart from injured Yogish Naika and Punith Naika, there are 3 more eye witnesses namely C.Ws.2, 3 and 4 who speak about incident. She contends that there is a prima-facie case against the appellant. Therefore, seeks to reject the appeal.

¶35

¶36

The present appellant/accused No.3 came to be arrested on 14.07.2021. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.A.No.806/2021 has enlarged accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. It is observed therein that in view of the discrepancy in the wound certificate, prima facie material against the appellant do not appear.

¶37

In the wound certificate of injured Yogish Naika, history is mentioned as RTA by bike and 407 on 11.05.2021 at about 9.30 p.m near Halkurke Tank Bund. However, as per the history furnished by injured Punith Naika he sustained injuries by assault by one Manjunath and others. The said Manjunath is arraigned as accused No.2. He has been enlarged on bail. Further it is also not in dispute that accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 are also enlarged on bail. Hence, the appellant is also entitled for the relief he has sought on the ground of parity. For the said reason, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following;

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

The order dated 29.09.2021 passed by III Additional

¶42

District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru in

¶43

Crl.Misc.P.No.1060/2021 is hereby set aside.

¶44

The application filed by the appellant/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C is allowed. He is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.45/2021 of Honnavalli Police Station, subject to following conditions:

¶45

1. Appellant shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶46

1. He shall furnish proof of his residential address and shall inform the Court if there is change in address.

¶47

1. He shall not tamper with the evidence/prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶48

¶49

1. He shall not involve in any criminal activities.

¶50

1. He shall be regular in attending trial proceeding.

¶51

If any of the above conditions are violated, he shall not be entitled to the relief granted in this appeal.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Shivamurthy @ Murthy v. Sate of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivamurthy @ Murthy v. Sate of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajareddy Vs the State

Manoj Kumar Vs State by Byatarayanapura Police Station

Sri Hanumesh Vs State of Karnataka

Ramesh @ Dildhar Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

H Sharath Kumar Vs State by

Sri Mustafa v M Vs Sri a C Mohammed Harif