Allowed

Praveen v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2022CRL.A/1352/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this criminal appeal and granted bail to appellants accused of murder under the SC/ST (POA) Act. The Court set aside the trial court's order dismissing the bail application, holding that the charge sheet did not prima facie establish involvement and witness testimonies were insufficient to sustain the conviction.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the bail application is set aside; appellants are released on bail with a bond of Rs.2,00,000 and two sureties to a lending court or sureties to the satisfaction of the trial cour

Praveen Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1352 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Praveen S/o Govindappa, Aged about 23 years, R/o Mustoor Village, Taluka and District Chikkaballapura-562101.

¶8

Yusuf S/o Chotusab, Aged about 25 years, R/o 20^th Ward, Dargamohalla, Taluka and District Chikkaballapura-562101.

¶9

…Appellants

¶10

(By Sri V.G.Tigadi, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chikkaballapura Rural Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

Srinivas, S/o Late Venkatarayappa, Age 46 years,

¶14

:: 2 ::

¶15

R/o Mustoor Village, Taluka and District Chikkaballapura-562101.

¶16

…Respondents

¶17

(By Sri K.K.Krishna Kumar, HCGP for R1; R2 – served. Unrepresented.)

¶18

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to allow the appeal by setting aside impugned order dated 21.08.2021 dismissing their petition under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in Special Sessions Case No.81/2021 by the Learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura seeking bail in Spl.Sessions Case No.81/2021 for the offence p/u/s 302 read with 34 of IPC and under section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

I.A.1/2022 is filed under section 5 of the Limitation

¶22

Act to condone the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal. Finding sufficient cause for the delay, application is allowed. Delay is condoned.

¶23

This is an appeal under section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellants are accused 1 and 3 in Spl.

¶24

:: 3 ::

¶25

S.C. 81/2021 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura. By order dated 21.8.2021, the trial court dismissed the application filed by the appellants under section 439 Cr.P.C and hence this appeal.

¶26

Heard Sri V.G.Tigadi, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader. According to Government Pleader, notice on respondent No.2 has been served.

¶27

The prosecution case is about the killing of a person by name Venkatesh, son of the second respondent. The date of incident is 7.6.2021.

¶28

It appears that the appellants once moved for bail before the trial court and it was rejected. After filing of charge sheet, they approached for bail again and the said application was dismissed. This is the order that has given rise to this appeal.

¶29

:: 4 ::

¶30

The trial court is of the opinion that mere filing of charge sheet cannot be considered as changed circumstance. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Virupaksha Gouda and Another vs State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal 601/2017) it is held that filing of charge sheet in a way discloses involvement of accused in the crime and therefore bail cannot be granted.

¶31

It may be stated that the trial court has failed to assess the materials on record. No doubt the very filing of charge sheet indicates the involvement of accused, but what is required to be seen is whether prima facie materials exist against the accused. Here in this case the incident is said to have taken place in the agricultural land of former MLA namely Shivanand. Second respondent received a telephone call and came to know that his son was struggling for life having sustained injuries. Immediately he reached that place and asked his son as to what happened. Then the deceased is said to have

¶32

:: 5 ::

¶33

revealed the names of Praveen and Manjunathachari. He was not able to speak further. Therefore at the initial stage the deceased gave the names of two persons. The name of the third accused was not revealed by him. Then second respondent was produced before the Magistrate for recording his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. At that time he did not state the names of the persons revealed by his son. He simply stated that one Anji s/o Narayanappa and three others who are in jail caused the death of his son. It is very pertinent to mention here that second respondent did not come to know the name of Anji from his son at the spot. If the deceased had taken the names of Praveen and Manjunathachari, second respondent could have disclosed their names before the Magistrate. This is one prominent circumstance which has to be kept in mind.

¶34

Then according to the prosecution, CW4 to 6 are the eye witnesses. But if their statements are perused, they do not appear to be eye witnesses and what they

¶35

:: 6 ::

¶36

have stated is that they just saw three persons running away from that place and one of them had a knife in his hand. They actually do not state that they saw those three persons killing or inflicting injuries to the deceased. Then CW10 and 11 are cited as witnesses for establishing the circumstance that they saw the accused being with the deceased. Of course their statement discloses that they saw the deceased sitting with the accused and consuming liquor. But they are not eye witnesses and they do not say that they saw the actual incident. Their statement is helpful only to the limited extent of drawing an inference that the deceased was last seen with the accused.

¶37

Thus looked, an inference can be drawn that though charge sheet is filed, it does not prima facie establish the involvement of the appellants herein. The motive is said to be a quarrel that had taken place before 15 days before the incident while playing cricket. Motive also does not appear to be strong to suspect involvement of the appellants. Therefore I am of the opinion that the

¶38

:: 7 ::

¶39

impugned order cannot be sustained and the appellant can be admitted to bail. Hence, I pass the following :

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Appeal is allowed.

¶42

The order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, dated 21.8.2021 in Spl. S.C.81/2021 is set aside.

¶43

The appellants shall be released on bail by obtaining from each of them a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) and two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellants are also subjected to following conditions:-

¶44

i. They shall not tamper with the evidence collected by the investigating officer and threaten the witnesses.

¶45

ii. They shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial.

¶46

:: 8 ::

¶47

iii. They shall not get involved in any other criminal case/s in future. In case of any FIR is registered against them, the same will be considered for cancellation of bail.

¶48

iv. Till conclusion of trial, the appellants shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional police once in 15 days, preferably on every Sunday between 9 am and 12 noon.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

ckl/-

Praveen v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Paniyaravara Chunde Vs the State of Karnataka

Selvaraj @ Selva @ Kulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. v. R. Mukunda Vs the State of Karnataka

Navaneeth T @ Naveen Vs the State of Karnataka

Gautham K Vs State of Karnataka

Manjaiah Vs the State of Karnataka