Allowed

Ramakrishna @ Rama v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2021CRL.A/727/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed under SC/ST (POA) Act to set aside Sessions Court order refusing bail. High Court held that case depended on circumstantial evidence and there was no prima facie bar to bail. Appeal allowed; bail granted subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order refusing bail set aside; appellant released on bail on bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties.

Ramakrishna @ Rama Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.727 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Ramakrishna @ Rama @ Kotirama, S/o Narayana Aged about 25 years, R/o Vivekananda Nagara, Kanakapura Town, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District-562117.

¶9

…Appellant

¶10

(By Sri M.Krishne Gowda, Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Karnataka Kanakapura Town Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

Smt. Girijamma W/o Late Rajagopala R.T., Aged about 40 years, R/at Behind Girish Kalyana Mantapa, Nirvaneshwara Nagara, Kanakapura Town-562117.

¶14

…Respondents

¶15

(By Sri P.Thejesh, HCGP for R1; R2 - Served)

¶16

¶17

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act praying to set aside the impugned order passed by the Court of the 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge at Ramanagara in Crl.Misc.No.699/2019 dated on 03.12.2019 and enlarge the appellant on bail in Spl.C.No.9/2018 (arising out of Cr.No.163/2018) of Kanakapura Town Police Station, Bengaluru Rural, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B & 114 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(VA) of SC and ST (POA) Amendment Act pending on the file of the 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is filed by accused No.2 in Special Case No. 9/2018 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. The appellant and two other are facing trial in relation to offences punishable under sections 302, 120B, 114 of IPC and section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with section 34 IPC. Since the trial court refused to grant bail to the appellant, he is before this court in appeal.

¶21

¶22

Heard the appellant’s counsel and the High

¶23

Court Government Pleader. Respondent No.2 is served, but there is no representation from her side.

¶24

The allegation against the appellant is that he

¶25

hatched conspiracy with other accused for killing the husband of respondent No.2 in the background of some personal enemity. In the first instance, an FIR was registered against unknown persons. Investigation led to charge sheeting the appellant and two other accused. But, the charge sheet discloses that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution also relies upon recordings in CCTV. Accused No.3 appears to be the main accused and this court granted him bail while disposing of Crl. P. 6659/2020. The allegation against the appellant is that he aided accused No.3 in eliminating the

¶26

¶27

deceased. The appellant has been in custody for more than two years. Since the case is dependent on circumstantial evidence, at this stage it cannot be said that there are prima facie materials. Though recording of evidence has commenced, I do not think there is a bar for granting bail. The Sessions Court ought to have appreciated the facts and circumstances in a proper perspective for deciding the application under section 439 Cr.P.C. Hence, the following : -

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, dated 3.12.2019 in Crl.

¶30

Misc.No. 699/2019 on application under section 439 Cr.P.C is set aside, the said application is allowed.

¶31

¶32

(iii) The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- and providing two sureties

¶33

for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellant is also subjected to the following conditions : -

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

ckl

Ramakrishna @ Rama v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishna @ Rama 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

Lingareddy Bala Hanumantha Vs State by

Sri Harish Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Graduates Co. Operative Society Limited Vs Sri Kottada Malleshappa

Byranna B @ Byraiah Vs Manjulla K M

U Mohammad Ashraf Vs B H a Ravi

Nagaraja P.K Vs State of Karnataka