Allowed

Bharath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2021CRL.A/575/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard an appeal under the SC/ST Act against the rejection of a bail application. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court order, and granted bail to the appellants pending trial based on circumstantial evidence and lack of clear caste motive in the charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting bail is set aside; appellants released on bond of Rs. 2,00,000 and two sureties with conditions not to tamper with evidence or witnesses.

Bharath Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 575 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Bharath S/o Bathyappa, Aged about 26 years, R/at Thimmarayappa Swamy Temple Road, Near Muneshwaraswamy Temple, Anekal Town, Bengaluru Rural District-562106.

¶9

Ananda, S/o. Muniyappa, Aged about 30 years, R/at Rachamaranahally Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District-562106.

¶10

…Appellants

¶11

(By Sri M.R.Manjunath, Advocate)

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Karnataka, By Attibele Police, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building, Bengaluru-560009.

¶14

¶15

Shri Shrinath, S/o Sabanna, Aged about 29 years, R/at Thulasipura Village, Anjanapura Post, Bengaluru-560108.

¶16

…Respondents (By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP, for R1; R2 – served/unrepresented)

¶17

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act praying to set aside the order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.12/2021 and enlarge the appellants on bail in Cr.No.277/2020 its Spl.C.C.No.12/2021 of Attibele Police Station, Bengaluru District for an offence punishable under Section 364, 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, which is pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard the appellants counsel and the High Court

¶21

Government Pleader.

¶22

This is an appeal under section 14-A of the

¶23

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

¶24

¶25

Atrocities) Act. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, by her order dated 22.4.2021 rejected the appellants’ bail application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C and hence this appeal.

¶26

Appellants are accused 1 and 2 in Special C.C.12/2021 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. On 27.9.2020 one Srinath s/o Saibanna made a complaint to the Attibele Police about missing of his brother Dattatreya. On 16.10.2020, he again made another report to the police that the dead body of his brother Dattatreya was found in a dilapidated house outside the village Gundanagollahalli. Based on this report, the police invoked the offences under sections 364, 302 and 201 of IPC in Cr. No. 277/2020. The police held investigation and filed charge sheet.

¶27

¶28

It appears that the police invoked the offence

¶29

under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as the deceased was a scheduled caste. The whole case is based on circumstantial evidence. CW2 is the witness who happened to see the deceased for the last time being with the accused. Probably based on the clue given by him, the police arrested the accused and recorded their confession statements which disclose that accused No.1 wanted to marry a girl by name Pushpa. It appears that Pushpa had told accused No.1 Bharath that she was being tortured by the deceased and for this reason the accused hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased Dattatreya and pursuant to it they took him to a secluded place and killed him. Therefore it is clear that the investigating officer has wrongly invoked the provision of section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

¶30

¶31

Atrocities) Act in the charge sheet. The charge sheet does not disclose that the accused were aware that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste or not. That apart the caste factor of the deceased does not appear to be the reason for his death. As per the charge sheet the reason is something different, i.e., torturing of a girl by name Pushpa whom accused No.1 wanted to marry. Since the entire case revolves on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution has to prove all the links in the chain of circumstances, at this stage prima facie case about the involvement of the appellants cannot be said to be present. Merely because based on the confession statement of the appellants, no inference can be drawn about their involvement. The appellants can be secured for trial and therefore this appeal can be allowed. Hence, the following :-

¶32

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) Appeal is allowed.

¶35

(ii) The order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, dated 22.4.2021 on the application under section 439 Cr.P.C is set aside, the said application is allowed.

¶36

(iii) It is hereby ordered that the appellants 1 and 2 shall be released on bail by obtaining from each of them a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- and two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellants are also subjected to the conditions that,

¶37

(a) They shall not tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses.

¶38

¶39

(b) They shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial.

¶40

(c) They shall produce their address proof to the trial court and they shall undertake that in case they change their residence, they shall update their address by filing their address.

¶41

(d) They shall not get involved in any criminal offence.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

ckl

Bharath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharath v. the 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

Smt. S. N. Vinoda Vs Naveen Kumar. K

Sri Chidambara Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Thamaraiselvi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dinesh @ Dinesh Ganiga Vs State of Karnataka

V a Haresha Vs State of Karnataka

Rajini K Vs the State of Karnataka