Allowed

Mr Jai Prakash Reddy M v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2021CRL.A/584/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed three criminal appeals challenging bail rejection orders. The court set aside the Sessions Court's orders, dismissing the invocation of the SC/ST Act due to lack of caste-rivalry evidence, and granted bail to the appellants subject to standard conditions including attendance and no tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Orders impugned bail rejections set aside; appellants released on bail with bonds and sureties, subject to conditions regarding police attendance, no tampering with evidence, and appearing before tria

Mr Jai Prakash Reddy M Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 728 OF 2021 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.584/2021 AND 731/2021

¶7

In Crl.A.No.728/2021

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

Mr. Jagadish G.V., S/o. Venkatareddy, Aged about 43 years, Native of Aruru Village, Chikkaballapur Taluk, And Residing at Anjanapura, BDA Layout, Konanakunte, Bengaluru City-560062.

¶10

…Appellant

¶11

(By Sri Hashmath Pasha, Senior Advocate for Sri Nasir Ali, Advocate)

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Karnataka

¶14

Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chikkaballapur Sub Division, Chikkaballapur-562101.

¶15

(Rep by Learned State Public Prosecutor) (High Court of Karnataka)

¶16

¶17

Smt. Manjulamma, W/o A.C.Ramanjineya, Aged 45 years, R/at Avalanagenahalli Village, Chikkaballapur Taluk-562101.

¶18

…Respondents

¶19

(By Sri Venkatesh P. Dalawai, Spl.P.P. for R1, Sri S.R.Sreeprasad, Advocate for R2)

¶20

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act read with 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 01.06.2021 passed in Spl.S.C.No.46/2021 on the file of the 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura which is arising out of Cr.No.43/2021 of Gudibande Police Station, Chikkaballapura District for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 447, 114, 109, 120B read with 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and consequently enlarge him on bail.

¶21

In Crl.A.No.584/2021

¶22

BETWEEN

¶23

Mr. Jai Prakash Reddy M., S/o Late Patel Munireddy, Aged about 52 years, No.23/1, 1^st Floor, 1^st Main Road, Near Sheshadripuram Law College, Bengaluru-560020.

¶24

…Appellant

¶25

(By Sri Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy, Senior Counsel for Sri P.N.Hegde, Advocate)

¶26

AND

¶27

State of Karnataka through Gudibande Police Station,

¶28

¶29

Represented by Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Venkatesh Dalwai, High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560001.

¶30

Smt. Manjulamma, W/o A.C.Ramanjineya, Aged about 45 years, R/at Avalanagenahalli Village, Mandikal Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk-562101.

¶31

…Respondents

¶32

(By Sri Venkatesh P. Dalawai, Spl.P.P. for R1, Sri S.R.Sreeprasad, Advocate for R2)

¶33

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, praying to set aside the order dated 17.04.2021 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura in Crl.Misc.No.343/2021.

¶34

In Crl.A.No.731/2021

¶35

BETWEEN

¶36

Gerigi Venkatareddy, S/o Late Gerogo Byrappa, Aged about 62 years, Residing at Aruru Village, Chikkaballapur Taluk, Chikkaballapur District-562101.

¶37

…Appellant

¶38

(By Sri C.N.Raju, Advocate)

¶39

AND

¶40

The State by Gudibande Police, Chikkaballapur, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560001.

¶41

¶42

Smt. Manjulamma, W/o A.C.Ramanjineya, Aged about 45 years, R/at Avalanagenahalli Village, Mandikal Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk-562101.

¶43

…Respondents

¶44

(By Sri Venkatesh P. Dalawai, Spl.P.P. for R1)

¶45

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to enlarge the appellant on bail in Spl.S.C.No.46/2021 on the file of the 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura arising out of Cr.No.43/2021 of Gudibande Police Station, Chikkaballapura, for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 447, 114 read with 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 and etc.,

¶46

These Criminal Appeals coming on for admission this day, the court delivered the following:

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

All these appeals are disposed of by a common

¶49

order as they are in connection with an incident that took place on 22.3.2021 near a village called Avalanagenahalli, Chikkaballapur Taluk and District. One C.Ramanjeneya is the deceased. The first informant-Manjulamma is the wife of the deceased.

¶50

¶51

The appellant/Jagadish in Crl. A. 728/2021 is accused No.9, his application for bail under section 439 Cr.P.C was rejected by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, by order dated 1.6.2021 in Special S.C.No.46/2021. The bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C of the appellant/Sri Gerigi Venkatareddy in Crl.A.731/2021 also stood dismissed by order dated 1.6.2021. The appellant/Sri Jai Prakash Reddy’s bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C in Crl.A.584/2021 was dismissed by the Sessions Court by order dated 17.4.2021. Hence, these appeals under section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

¶52

I have heard Sri Hashmath Pasha, Sri Y.R.Sadashiva Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellants in Crl. A. 728/2021 and 584/2021

¶53

¶54

respectively and Sri C.N.Raju, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.731/2021. I have also heard the arguments of Sri Venkatesh P Dalawai, Special Public Prosecutor and Sri Sreeprasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/first informant.

¶55

Investigation is completed. The charge sheet

¶56

shows that the wife of the deceased had been granted a piece of land in Sy. No.280 of Avalanagenahalli. Abutting her land there is a gomal land which is being used as a burial ground and abutting this burial land, the land of accused No.3 is there. It appears that there is land dispute between accused No.3 and the deceased and in that connection suits are/were pending between the deceased and accused No.11 in the Court of Civil Judge, Gudibande. What is alleged is in the background of this land dispute, on 22.3.2021 when the deceased Ramanjeneya and his wife were working in the fields, accused 1 to 7 formed

¶57

¶58

unlawful assembly and assaulted the deceased to death. When the first informant interfered, she too was injured severely. The charge sheet has been filed against the accused for prosecuting the accused in connection with offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 447, 114, 109, 120B

¶59

read with section 149 IPC and sections 3(1)(r), (s),

¶60

(w), 3(2)(V)(v-a) of the Act.

¶61

Learned senior counsel Sri Hashmath Pasha

¶62

argues by referring to the spot panchanama that if in the FIR it is mentioned that the incident took place in the land, but the spot panchanama shows that the deceased was attacked in the road. Therefore there is discrepancy firstly with regard to the place of incident. His next point of argument is in so far as accused No.9 is concerned, the allegation made against him is that he is an abettor and a member of conspiracy. He was not present at the time of the incident. At this

¶63

¶64

stage, the materials collected by the investigating officer do not disclose that he was a member of the conspiracy and that he actually abetted the other accused to assault the deceased. Referring to the statement of one witness namely, CW5, Harish, he argues that though CW5 has stated that he overheard the conversation between the actual assailants and accused No.9, there is nothing to indicate that on the instigation given by accused No.9, the other accused assaulted the deceased. What is forthcoming is that after the deceased was done to death, information was given to accused No.9 over the phone and therefore from the statement of CW5 it is not possible to draw an inference that accused No.9 abetted the other accused to assault the deceased. He further argues that charge sheet discloses that the incident took place in the background of land dispute. There is nothing to show that caste rivalry was the primary

¶65

¶66

reason for killing the deceased. Only for the reason

¶67

that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste, the police appear to have invoked the penal provisions under the Act. Except this there is nothing to show that an offence which can be punished under the Act has been committed. Therefore, it is his argument that accused No.9 has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶68

Sri C.N.Raju, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. A. 731/2021 submits that as regards accused No.11/Gerigi Venkatareddy the allegations are that he too abetted the commission of offence and that he was a member of conspiracy. He too refers to the statement of CW5 and argues that from his statement, inference cannot be drawn that he was a member of conspiracy and abetted the commission of offence.

¶69

¶70

Sri Y.R.Sadashiva Reddy, the learned senior

¶71

counsel for the appellant in Crl. A. 584/2021, argues that the land dispute was the actual cause for the incident to take place. There is nothing to show that accused No.11/Sri Jai Prakash Reddy has been involved in the commission of offence. Accused No.11 is an advocate at Bengaluru and on the day of the incident he was very much present in Bengaluru. His involvement in commission of the offence is impossible to be imagined. Therefore he is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶72

Learned counsel for all the appellants submitted that the appellants will regularly attend the trial court and they will abide by any condition that the court imposes on them.

¶73

Sri Venkatesh P Dalawai, the Special Public Prosecutor, opposes all these appeals. His

¶74

¶75

submissions are that though the allegation against the appellants are that they are the conspirators and abettors, the seizure panchanama discloses that accused No.9 actually parked the motor bike in the parking lounge at Baptish Hospital. Blood stains were found on the motor cycle. The confession statement of accused No.9 shows his involvement in the offence. He further submits that the entire materials collected by the investigating officer do indicate that all the accused wanted to eliminate the deceased. There used to take place quarrels very often in connection with the land dispute. There was caste rivalry also and therefore it is his argument that prima facie materials are forthcoming. He argues for dismissing the appeals.

¶76

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Sri Sreeprasad submits that panchanama shows that the wife of the deceased suffered six injuries. She was

¶77

¶78

very much present when her husband was assaulted. She is the main witness to the incident. The mental agony that she has sustained seeing her husband being killed is to be taken into consideration in deciding the appeals. He too argues for dismissing the appeals.

¶79

After hearing the arguments, it is to be stated that in so far as the offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, the charge sheet materials do not indicate that the deceased was killed in the background of caste rivalry. There is nothing to indicate that the accused hated the deceased merely because he belonged to scheduled caste. It appears, the investigating officer has invoked the penal provision under the Act very rhetorically without ascertaining whether the incident could be brought within the ambit of the Act or not.

¶80

¶81

So far as offences under section 302 IPC are

¶82

concerned, according to the charge sheet materials all these appellants were not present at the place of incident. The allegations against them are that they had conspired and abetted the other accused to commit offence. It is true that the seizure panchanama shows that a motor bike containing blood stains was seized at the instance of accused No.9 in the premises of Baptist Hospital. By seizure of the vehicle, it is not possible to draw an inference that he abetted the other accused to commit the crime. Abetment and conspiracy requires strict proof. The statement of CW5 that he saw accused No.9 giving signal to other accused to eliminate the deceased, cannot be based at this stage to hold that he abetted the other accused to cause the death of the deceased. As argued by Sri Hashmath Pasha there is discrepancy with regard to place of incident. If according to the

¶83

¶84

first informant, the incident took place in the land of the deceased, the spot panchanama shows the incident having taken place in a road. The investigating officer can alone has to explain this. But at the stage of disposing of bail application it is to be stated that all these factors can be taken into consideration to assess whether there exists prima facie materials against the accused or not. When the charge sheet materials do not indicate the direct participation of the appellants, it cannot be said that there are prima facie materials against them.

¶85

In the circumstances discussed above,

¶86

section 18 of the Act is not a bar for granting anticipatory bail to the appellant in Crl.A.584/2021. Hence, the following : -

¶87

ORDER

¶88

(i) Appeals are allowed.

¶89

¶90

(ii) The order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, on applications under section 439 Cr.P.C in Crl.A.Nos. 728/2021 and 731/2021 and under section 438 Cr.P.C in Crl. A. No. 584/2021 are set aside, the said applications are allowed.

¶91

(iii) The appellants n Crl.A.Nos. 728/2021 and 731/2021 are ordered to be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶92

(iv) In the event of arrest of the appellant in Crl.A.584/2021, he is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- and providing two

¶93

¶94

sureties for the likesum to the

¶95

satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶96

All the three appellants are also subjected to the following conditions : -

¶97

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

¶98

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

¶99

¶100

(d) They shall mark their attendance once in 15 days on a Sunday before the first respondent police station between 9 AM and 12 Noon till conclusion of trial.

¶101

Sd/JUDGE

¶102

ckl

Mr Jai Prakash Reddy M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Jai Prakash Reddy M 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

V a Haresha Vs State of Karnataka

Rajini K Vs the State of Karnataka

Bharath Vs the State of Karnataka

A R Chandrakanth Vs Sri G Baloo

Mr. D. Anthony Raj Vs the Station House Officer

Sri C T Raju @ Kokkada Raju Vs State by