Allowed

Steven @ Stephen @ Bekkam v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2022CRL.A/1355/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court set aside the lower court order, admitted the appellant to bail on a bond of Rs.2,00,000, and imposed stringent conditions to prevent witness tampering given the nature of the Scheduled Caste/ST offence involving murder.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing bail application dated 14.02.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.126/2022 is set aside; application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. allowed; appellant admitted to bail on bond of Rs.2,00,000 with suret

Steven @ Stephen @ Bekkam Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1355 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Steven @ Stephen @ Bekkam S/o Anthony Selestin Aged about 26 years, C/o Rayappa, R/at No.58, 8^th Cross, Papanna Layout, T.C.Palya, Bengaluru-560036.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri Veeranna G Tigadi, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka By Avalahalli Police Station, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.

¶12

Roopa V, W/o G.Venkatesh @ Kulla Venkatesh, Aged about 42 years, No.244, 3^rd Main, 2^nd Cross, Bhovi Colony, Rammurthy Nagar, Bengaluru-560016.

¶13

…Respondents

¶14

(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1; Sri B.S.Prasada, Advocate for R2)

¶15

:: 2 ::

¶16

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act praying to set aside the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the Honourable II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.126/2022 and etc.

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Heard Sri Veeranna G Tigadi, learned counsel for the appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri

¶20

B.S.Prasada, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶21

This appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (‘SC/ST Act’ for short), questioning the correctness of the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.126/2022, rejecting the appellant’s application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in connection with Spl.C.No.5/2022. The appellant is

¶22

:: 3 ::

¶23

accused No.5 and he is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 341 and 120B of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶24

In the incident that took place on 25.09.2021, one Venkatesha was killed. The motive for the incident appears to be land dispute between accused No.1 and the deceased. It is alleged that accused No.1 contacted accused 2 to 8 for elimination of the deceased and they hatched a conspiracy and they accomplished their goal on 25.09.2021. So far as the appellant is concerned, what is alleged is that he was driving the auto rickshaw in which accused 1, 3 and 4 were sitting and he dashed the auto rickshaw to the scooter which the deceased was riding. When the deceased fell down, accused 1, 2, 3 and 4 hacked the deceased to death by causing severe injuries.

¶25

:: 4 ::

¶26

The post mortem report discloses presence of 14 external injuries.

¶27

Sri Veeranna G Tigadi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though in the charge sheet accused No.5 is shown to be a member of conspiracy, till trial is over, it is not possible to draw any inference that he was also a conspirator. He also submits that the actual overt-act of killing the deceased is attributed to accused 1 to 4. Already accused 7 and 8 are released on bail and in this view, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶28

Learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the appeal by arguing that because the appellant dashed the scooter being ridden by the deceased, the latter fell down. This clearly indicates that the appellant was also a member of conspiracy. Though the overt-act of causing injury is attributed to accused 1 to 4, the very fact that

¶29

:: 5 ::

¶30

the appellant dashed his auto rickshaw to the scooter indicates his involvement in commission of crime. Therefore appeal is to be rejected. He also draws my attention to the statement given by CW4, the eye witness.

¶31

Sri B.S.Prasada, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that a ghastly incident took place near a wine shop and CW4 is an eye witness. Her statement shows that she identified

¶32

all the accused. If bail is granted, there is every likelihood that appellant will threaten the witnesses and therefore bail should not be granted.

¶33

If entire charge sheet is perused, the land dispute between the deceased and the accused No.1 appears to be the main reason for the incident to take place. In para-12 of the impugned order, the court below has opined that the incident was nothing but an attack on the

¶34

:: 6 ::

¶35

member of the scheduled caste. It is very difficult to accept the opinion of the trial court. There are no materials to come to that conclusion. Registration of FIR for the offences under the provisions of Atrocities Act appears to be improper.

¶36

Now, so far as the incident is concerned, the charge sheet clearly indicates accused 1 to 4 to be the main assailants. They have been identified by the eye witnesses. So far as the appellant is concerned, he is shown to be the driver of auto rickshaw which dashed the scooter being ridden by the deceased. Therefore he is shown to be a member of conspiracy. Whether he is a member of conspiracy or not cannot be decided at this stage. It requires evidence. Direct evidence for conspiracy is seldom available and inferences have to be drawn from other proved facts.

¶37

:: 7 ::

¶38

Since specific overt-act of causing

¶39

injuries is not attributed to appellant, and it appears he has no criminal antecedents, I do not think that there is any impediment for granting bail. However, keeping in mind the apprehension expressed by the counsel for second respondent about likelihood of witnesses being threatened by the appellant, stringent conditions may be

¶40

imposed. Therefore the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

Appeal is allowed.

¶43

The order passed by the II

¶44

Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru dated 14.02.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.126/2022 on the application

¶45

of the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is set aside. The said

¶46

application is allowed.

¶47

:: 8 ::

¶48

The appellant is admitted to bail on obtaining from him 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:-

¶49

i. He shall not tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses. The trial court may cancel the bail to the appellant if it is brought to its notice that the appellant tried to influence or threaten or winover the witnesses.

¶50

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

¶51

iii. He shall not get involved in any other criminal case/s in future. In case of any FIR is registered against

¶52

:: 9 ::

¶53

him, the same will be considered for cancellation of bail.

¶54

iv. He shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police station once in a week preferably on Sunday between 9 am and 12 noon, till conclusion of trial.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Kmv/-

Steven @ Stephen @ Bekkam v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Steven @ Stephen @ Bekkam 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

Sri N Nanjundaswamy S/O Maridevanna Vs State by Lokayuktha Police

Sri. K. Kumar Vs State by Police Inspector

Dr Rajiv Bajpai Vs State of Karnataka

Mahendra S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G. T. Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Vinodachar Vs State of Karnataka