Four criminal appeals filed by accused persons challenging the rejection of their bail applications in a murder case involving atrocities on a Scheduled Caste member. The High Court held that there is a prima facie case and grant of bail would endanger witnesses.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1527 OF 2021,
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1529 OF 2021, & CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1943 OF 2021
IN CRL.A.NO.3 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI GIRISH, S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED 28 YEARS, ARURU VILLAGE & POST, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562 101.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI NARAYANASWAMY H.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
... RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALAWAI, SPL.P.P. FOR R.1; SRI S.R. SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED ON 20.09.2021 SPL.S.C.NO.46/2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHIKKABALLAPURA AND ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 447, 114, 109 AND 120B READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(v) AND 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT IN CR.NO.43/2021 OF CHIKKABALLAPURA POLICE.
IN CRL.A.NO.1527 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
MR. CHIKKAMANJUNATHA @ MANJUNATHA, S/O. GERIGI VENKATAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O. ARUR VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK – 562 104.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P. MR. VENKATESH DALWAI, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.
3
R/O. AVALNAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK – 562 104.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALAWAI, SPL.P.P. FOR R.1; SRI S.R. SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA IN CRL.MISC.NO.880/2021, WHERE UNDER, THE LEARNED JUDGE HAS REJECTED THE REGULAR BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING BAIL IN REFERENCE TO CR.NO.43/2021 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 447, 114, 109, 120B AND 149 OF IPC, SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va) AND 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.43/2021 (SPL.C.C.NO.46/2021) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va) AND 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 447, 114, 109, 120B AND 149 OF IPC.
IN CRL.A.NO.1529 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
MR. DODDAMANJUNATHA, S/O. GERIGI VENKATAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. ARURU VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK – 562 101.
... APPELLANT
AND:
4
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P. MR. VENKATESH DALWAI, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALAWAI, SPL.P.P. FOR R.1; SRI S.R. SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA IN SPL.S.C.NO.46/2021, WHEREUNDER, THE LEARNED JUDGE HAS REJECTED THE REGULAR BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTIONS 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING BAIL IN REFERENCE TO CR.NO.43/2021 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 447, 114, 109 AND 120B READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC, SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(v) AND 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.43/2021 (SPL.C.C.NO.46/2021) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s), (w), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
IN CRL.A.NO.1943 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
AMARANARAYANACHARI, S/O. PAPACHARI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARURU VILLAGE,
5
MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562 101.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALAWAI, SPL.P.P. FOR R.1; SRI S.R. SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED ON 01.09.2021 PASSED IN SPL.S.C.NO.46/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHIKKABALLAPURA, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.43/2021 OF GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 447, 109, 120B AND 114 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va) AND 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 AND GRANT BAIL TO THE APPELLANT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.04.2022 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
6
JUDGMENT
In these appeals, the appellants are seeking to set aside the impugned order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, in Special Sessions Case No.46/2021 whereby the bail applications filed by them under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. have been dismissed.
7
2015 (‘SC/ST (POA) Act’ for short) and Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 302, 307, 324, 114, 109 and 120B of IPC.
Further, there was a land dispute between the deceased and accused No.11 and his children i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2 since 10-15 years. Accused No.11 had filed a civil Suit in O.S.No.39/2009 against the deceased and the deceased had
8
filed O.S.No.6/2011. The suit filed by the deceased ended in his favour and he had even succeeded in the appeal preferred by the accused. Hence, there was enmity between the deceased and the said accused.
Further, in connection with an incident which had taken place on 19.03.2020, one Venkateshappa had lodged a complaint against accused No.11 and his children and a case was registered in Crime No.57/2020. The deceased was a prime witness in the said case. The accused were of the firm belief that the said criminal case was registered against them at the instance of the deceased and they were grinding an axe against him.
Further, to the Northern portion of the land of the complainant, the lands of accused Nos.4, 5 and 7 were situated. Accused No.5 had supported accused No.3 to put up stones around the land which was questioned by the deceased and the said accused had quarreled with the deceased and CW1.
9
p.m. when the deceased A.C.Ramanjineya was proceeding on a two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-40-L-485 along with his wife (CW1) to their land bearing Sy.No.280, all the accused who had conspired to commit his murder, formed an unlawful assembly with a common object of committing his murder, trespassed into the said land and assaulted him with the deadly weapons all over his body and committed his murder. Further, they assaulted CW1 with the weapons they were carrying, while she tried to rescue her husband and caused grievous injuries to her.
10
the land, whereas in the spot panchanama, the spot is shown on the road and therefore, there is discrepancy. The learned counsel submits that CW1 was the President of Aroor Gram Panchayat from 2005 to 2010 and she is an influential woman and hence, due to political rivalry she has lodged a complaint against the accused persons falsely implicating them.
11
accused No.6 has assaulted on the left hand and left leg of CW1, however, in the wound certificate the name of accused No.6 is not mentioned. He contends that in view of the long standing civil dispute and political rivalry, accused No.6 has been falsely implicated. He contends that accused No.6 was initially supporting CWs.1 and 15 and later changed the party. Hence, at the instance of CW15, accused No.6 has been falsely implicated.
12
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
have also submitted accused No.8, 9 and 11 shown in the charge sheet have been enlarged on bail by this Court. They submit that there are no criminal antecedents against the accused and now investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed and therefore, seeks to enlarge the appellants on bail by imposing any conditions.
13
accused No.2 has been absconding for nearly three months and therefore, there is no recovery from him. He contends that now the case is set down for framing charges and at this stage, if the appellants are enlarged on bail, there are all chances of threatening the prosecution witnesses and thereby hampering the case of prosecution.
14
facie case against them and accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeals.
15
Nos.4 and 5 held her tightly and pushed her to the ground and accused Nos.3 and 6 assaulted her with choppers. Insofar as accused No.7 named in the charge sheet, who is shown as accused No.9 in the FIR, it is alleged that he along with other accused persons abused in filthy language referring to the caste of the victims and also threatened with dire consequences.
16
the said accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated etc., cannot be accepted at this stage. The name of accused No.2 is very much found in the FIR and is shown as one of the assailant who has assaulted the deceased with chopper. Even in the statement of CW1 recorded under Section 164 (5) Cr.P.C., she has categorically stated about the presence and participation of the said accused. She has stated that the said accused assaulted her deceased husband on his head with a chopper. The overt acts of accused Nos.1 and 6 are also clearly spelt in the FIR as well as in the statement of CW1 recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. The eye witnesses have also stated about their overt acts. In both FIR as well as the statement under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C., CW1 has stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 have assaulted the deceased with chopper and she was assaulted by accused Nos.3 and 6.
statement of CW1 cannot be weighed at this stage. The presence and participation of the appellants in the crime in question has been clearly spoken by the injured-CW1 as well as eye witnesses namely CWs.3 to 5. The learned Sessions
17
Judge having considered the facts and circumstances of the case has rejected the prayer of the appellants seeking bail.
18
assailant. On the other hand, it is alleged that he conspired with the other accused persons. His presence at the scene of occurrence is not spoken by the eye witnesses. Hence, grant of bail to the said accused persons will not enure to the benefit of the appellants.
19
gravity of the offence and the reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the appeals are dismissed.
The observations made in this order shall not influence the trial of the case in any manner.
Sd/JUDGE
TL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should grant bail to appellants accused of murdering a Scheduled Caste member in a brutal manner involving an unlawful assembly.
Whether the apprehension that released bail granted to fellow accused persons threatens the prospects of safe bail for the pending appellants.
Whether the existence of civil disputes and political rivalry justifies interference with the Sessions Judge's order rejecting bail.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
SRI GIRISH
MR. CHIKKAMANJUNATHA
MR. DODDAMANJUNATHA
AMARANARAYANACHARI
STATE OF KARNATAKA
MANJULAMMA
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
