Allowed

Munirama @ Koosu @ Muniraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2022CRL.A/1353/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's order rejecting bail. The court held that while the SC/ST Act was invoked due to the victim's caste, there was no material showing a caste-based attack aimed at the appellant, making him eligible for bail.

What did the court decide?

The earlier order rejecting bail is set aside; the appellant is released on bail on Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties.

Munirama @ Koosu @ Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1353 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Munirama @ Koosu @ Muniraju S/o Venkataramaiah, Aged about 32 years, R/at Muthurayanagudipalya Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District-562160.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri Basavaraju T.A., Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Karnataka by Bidadi Police Station, Ramanagara District, Represented by Learned State Public Prosecutor, Public Prosecutors Office At High Court of Karnataka, Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru-560001.

¶12

Smt. Sharada W/o B.Kumar Aged about 29 years, R/at Muthurayanagudipalya Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara District-562160. …Respondents

¶13

(By Sri K.S.Abhijith, HCGP for R1; Sri Sridhar N., Advocate for R2-Absent.)

¶14

:: 2 ::

¶15

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)2 of SC/ST (POA) Act of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 24.08.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.580/2021 passed by Honble 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge at Ramanagara District consequently enlarge the appellant on bail in Cr.No.158/2021 of Bidadi Police Station, for an offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 302, 120B, 112, 149 of IPC, and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act which is pending in the file of the Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Ramanagara District in Cr.No.158/2021.

¶16

This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission through video conferencing this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This is an appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (‘SC/ST Act’ for short). Accused No.9 has preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, in Crl.Misc.No.580/2021 rejecting his application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶19

:: 3 ::

¶20

Heard Sri Basavaraju T A, learned

¶21

counsel for the appellant and the High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.

¶22

The appellant’s earlier appeal i.e., Crl.A.No.1090/2021 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2021, on the ground that the investigation was not yet over. Counsel for the appellant submits that now the investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed.

¶23

The appellant also approached the Sessions Court by filing Crl.Misc.No.580/2021 seeking bail and the same having stood dismissed by order dated 24.08.2021, the appellant has approached this Court again.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons, totally 11 in number, caused the death of one Kumara. According to prosecution there are five eye witnesses, namely, CW3 to CW7.

¶25

:: 4 ::

¶26

They all say that the deceased was assaulted by accused No.1 to 6. So far as the appellant is concerned, it is stated that he was a member of conspiracy. Except this allegation, no overt-act of inflicting injuries to the deceased is attributed to him. Moreover, the dispute appears to be between the first accused and the deceased in relation to real estate business. Just because the deceased happens to be a member of Scheduled Caste, provisions of Atrocities Act have been invoked. But there is no material to indicate that the offence took place in the background of caste based attack. In this view of the matter, the appellant becomes entitled to bail. The order of the trial Court cannot be sustained for this reason. Therefore the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Appeal is allowed.

¶29

The order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

¶30

:: 5 ::

¶31

Ramanagara, dated 24.08.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.580/2021 on the application of the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is set aside. The said application is allowed.

¶32

The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

iii. He shall not get himself involved in any other criminal case/s in future.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Kmv/-

Munirama @ Koosu @ Muniraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munirama @ Koosu @ Muniraju 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

Dandupalya Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Doddahanuma @ Hanuma Vs State of Karnataka

Ajah Francis Obasi Vs State of Karnataka

Mahesha Vs the State of Karnataka

Shabina Syed Khasim Vs the State of Karnataka

R. Geetha Vs Shanthamma