Allowed

Mr. Arunmanoraj R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2021CRL.A/361/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an appeal by an accused person seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court held that as co-accused have been granted bail based on parity and specific characteristics of the case, the appellant is also entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed; impugned order set-aside; application for bail allowed; accused enlarged on bail on bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- with conditions.

Mr. Arunmanoraj R Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.361 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Mr.ArunManoraj.R S/o M.G.Ramaiah Aged about 34 years R/at No.83 DiasisAnugraha Apartment KSFC Layout Lingarajapuram Bengaluru-560084(Accused No.25)

¶9

…Appellant (By Sri.C.H.Hanumantharaya.,Senior Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Karnataka By Devarajeevanahalli Police Station Bengaluru City Represented by. (State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bangalore-01)

¶12

Mr.Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy S/o Late.Ramaiah Aged about 50 years MLA, Pulakeshinagara Constituency

¶13

¶14

No.32, KavalByrasandra R.T.Nagar Post

¶15

Bengaluru City-560032.

¶16

… Respondents (Sri.Thejesh.P. HCGP a/w Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, Spl.P.P. for R1; Sri.Murthy.D.Naik Adv., for R2)

¶17

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, praying this court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Spl.Case No.744/2020 arising out of Cr.No.219/2020 of Devarajeevanahalli PS., registered on 14.08.2020 now being investigated by the Anti Terrorist Cell, for the offence p/u/s 143, 144, 145, 435, 436, 395, 447, 448, 427, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC and Section 2 of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act.

¶18

This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This is an appeal by accused no.25 who is charge

¶21

sheeted for the offences under Section 143, 144, 145, 447, 448, 435, 436, 395, 427, 212, 120-B r/w 149 of

¶22

IPC and Section 2 of The Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 and Section 3(2) (iii), (iv), (v), (va) of The Scheduled Castes and Schedules

¶23

¶24

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), 1989 and Section 25(1B) (b) of Indian Arms Act, 1959.

¶25

The earlier application filed by the very same appellant before this Court has been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.4606/2020 dated 5.11.2020. In view of the circular issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the matter was placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice to secure an order as to whether the successive bail applications filed by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. could be entertained by this Court having roster of the Special Court. The Hon’ble Chief Justice by a special order dated 15.3.2021 has directed to post the matter before this court and hence, I have heard Sri. C.H. Hanumantharaya, Senior Advocate for the appellant and Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, Special P.P., appearing on behalf of State - respondent no.1 and Sri. Murthy

¶26

D. Naik, advocate for respondent no.2- complainant.

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has produced copy of the order passed in Crl.A.No.358/2021 whereby the applications filed by the co-accused viz., accused no.33 has been allowed by this court and would submit that identical allegations having been leveled against accused no.25 he may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶29

The prayer is seriously opposed by Sri. P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the respondent no.1 and in para 14 of the objection statement, it is contended as under:

¶30

“14. It has been contended by the appellant that the 2^nd respondent has used the incident for his political gains and to benefit his political career.

¶31

It is submitted that the said contention is baseless and denied as false. It is submitted that the accused persons in the above case have caused huge destruction

¶32

¶33

and loss to the property of the 2^nd respondent. Further, valuables and other important documents have been destroyed and stolen from the house of the 2^nd respondent causing huge loss. It is submitted that the entire house of the 2^nd respondent has been burnt down by the accused persons. As such, the contention of the appellant that the 2^nd respondent who is the sitting member of the legislative assembly for consecutive terms would have the need to use the said incident for his personal gains is denied as false. As such, the petition filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected.

¶34

It is submitted that CW 4,5,6,9,12,17,18,19,20,21 and 22 state the role of the appellant herein in the said crime and that he has instigated the other accused persons to commit the said crime and cause harm to the 2^nd respondent/1^st informant. Further appellant/accused no.25 herein has instigated the other

¶35

¶36

accused persons to attack the house of the 2^nd respondent/1^st informant and cause harm to him. As such the petition filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected.”

¶37

Sri. Murthy D.Naik, learned counsel for

¶38

respondent no.2 has seriously opposed the appeal contending that the Co-ordiante Bench of this Court having already held that entire incident having taken place on account of the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons along with this accused, this appellant cannot be extended the benefit of the order made in favour of accused no.33. Further in Paragraphs 7, 9 and 11, it is contended that:

¶39

In this appeal the Appellant is seeking for his release on Bail in the above said crime and as such is his 5^th attempt for bail. The details of the bail applications filed by the present Appellant so far is as under:-

¶40

Sl. No	Court before which the Bail Application was filed	Case No.	Stage	Result	Date
1	Special Court	Crl.Mis.No.4556 /2020	Pending investiga tion	Dismissed	15.09.2020
2	High Court	Crl.Pet No.4606/2020	After charge sheet	Dismissed	05.11.2020

¶41

¶42

3	Special Court	Spl.CC No.744/2020	After Charge Sheet	Dismissed As withdrawn	28.12.2020
4	Special Court	Sp CC No. 744/2020	After Supplem entary charge sheet	Dismissed	16.02.2021

¶43

The offences alleged against this Appellant are serious in nature, some of which have a prescribed sentence of imprisonment for life. This Hon’ble Court by order dated 5.11.2020, while dismissing Criminal Petition No.4606/2020 filed by the present Appellant and Accused No.33, has been pleased to observe that there is prima-facie case against them and as such denied bail to them. The copy of the order dated 05.11.2020, passed in Criminal Petition No.4606/2020 by this court is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURER2(A). Further this Hon’ble Court in Criminal petition No.5785/2020 filed by the Accused No.7 and in Criminal Petition No.5241/2020 filed by the Accused No.23, after charge-sheet, passed a common order dated 23.11.2020, whereby it was pleased to reject their Bail Applications after taking into consideration the

¶44

¶45

various allegations made against the said Accused in the Chargesheet.

¶46

There is absolutely no change in circumstances warranting grant of bail to the Appellant. The Appellant has suppressed material facts in this Appeal. The impugned order does not require interference as it is sound and proper. The perusal of the grounds urged in the Appeal Memo would indicate that the Appellant has canvassed the very same grounds which have already been considered by this Hon’ble Court in Criminal Petiton No.4606/2020, which cannot be once again looked into by this Hon’ble Court. Further the Appellant has strongly relied on the various orders passed by this Hon’ble Court granting bail to Accused Nos.58,57 and 59.”

¶47

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the charge sheet papers, I find that the appellant herein stands on par with accused no.33, who has been enlarged on bail by this court on 16.3.2021 in

¶48

¶49

Crl.A.No.358 of 2021. The appellant has been implicated in the alleged offence on the basis of conspiracy. According to the prosecution, accused no.57 and other accused conveyed their decision of conspiracy through accused no.25 (the appellant herein) and accused no.33, 35 and others. There are no allegations whatsoever that the appellant herein was either a party to the alleged conspiracy or an abettor to the commission of the offence. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the appellant was actually involved in the commission of the offence. The only material relied on by the prosecution in proof of the complicity of the appellant are the statements of CWs-4,5,6,9,12,17,19,20,21 and 22. The gist of the statements of these witnesses is that three months earlier to the alleged incident of riot, during the COVID time, there was a meeting at Hasina Hall which was attended to by accused no.57 Sri. Sampath

¶50

¶51

Raj and Sri. D.K.Shiva Kumar and during that meeting, the ration kits were distributed. The further statements of the witnesses read that in the said meeting, the appellant herein and accused no.33 were distributing ration kits. Other than that, there are no allegations that the appellant was a party to the alleged conspiracy between accused No.57,58,59 and 60. In the said circumstances, accused no.33, 57, 58 and 59 having been already enlarged on bail by this Court, in my view, on the ground of parity as well as on account of changed circumstances discussed above, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶52

It is also necessary to note that even though charge sheet is laid alleging commission of offences under section 3(2),(iii),(iv),(v),(va) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, yet, there is no dispute with regard to the fact

¶53

¶54

that the appellant herein is also a member of Scheduled Caste. As such, the charge under section 3(2),(iii),(iv),(v),(va) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, leading to life sentence cannot stand against the appellant. With regard to the charge under section 395 IPC is concerned, there are no materials to connect the appellant to the alleged act of dacoity. On the other hand, the appellant is sought to be sent up for trial on the specific allegation that he being the follower of accused No.57 was also present during the conspiracy that had taken place three months earlier to the alleged incident. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant was in any way instrumental in setting fire to the house of respondent No.2 causing destruction of properties. Having regard to the nature of accusations levelled against the

¶55

¶56

appellant, there cannot be any apprehension of the

¶57

appellant tampering with the evidence.

¶58

For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 16.02.2021 passed by learned LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.744/2020 is set-aside.

¶59

The application filed by the appellant herein/accused No.25 under section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶60

before the trial court is allowed.

¶61

i) The appellant - Mr. Arun Manoraj R. is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bond in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶62

ii) He shall regularly appear before the trial court on every date of hearing

¶63

¶64

without fail unless exempted by orders of the Court.

¶65

iii) He shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.

¶66

iv) He shall not get himself involved in similar offences.

¶67

v) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court until conclusion of trial without prior permission.

¶68

If any of these conditions are violated, liberty is

¶69

reserved to the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

Mr. Arunmanoraj R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Arunmanoraj R v. State 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

Keerthan Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Praveena @ Karadi Vs State of Karnataka

Ahmmed Hassan @ Hadam Vs State by Yeshwanthpura Police

Amir Khan @ Papu Vs State by Kuthnoor P S

Muneer Vs State by

R. Vishwanath @ Vishwa Vs State of Karnataka