Allowed

Sri Siddarath v. State by

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2022CRL.A/1566/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a criminal appeal seeking bail. The court set aside the trial court's rejection, holding that detention is not justifiable when the case relies entirely on circumstantial evidence, despite serious charges including murder under IPC 302 and offences under the SC/ST Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellant's bail application allowed; personal bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties to be executed along with other conditions.

Sri Siddarath Vs State by — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.A.No.1566/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF JANUARY 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1566/2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.SIDDARATH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O SHEENA SUVARNA R/O ‘SRINIVASA’ KADKE BADANIDIYOOR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101 ... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.K.PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY BRAHMAVAR POLICE STATION UDUPI REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001

¶13

SMT.JYOTHI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O LATE NAVEEN NAIK GUARDIAN OF VICTIM R/AT UDDALLA, HOSURU VILLAGE BRAHMAVAR TALUK – 576 213 ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED)

¶15

CRL.A.No.1566/2021

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPL.CASE NO.28/2021 (CR.NO.22/2021) REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE, THE SAME IS PENDING TRIAL ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS/SPECIAL JUDGE AT UDUPI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 112, 120B, 302, 149 OF IPC.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Aggrieved by the rejection of his application for grant of bail, accused No.5 in Special Case No.28/2021 on the file of Principal District & Sessions/Special Judge, Udupi has preferred the above appeal.

¶21

The appellant and six others are facing trial in Spl. Case No.28/2021 before the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 452, 323, 112, 120B, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (‘the SC/ST Act’ for short).

¶22

CRL.A.No.1566/2021

¶23

¶24

The victim Naveen @ Gundu Naik belonged to

¶25

the scheduled tribe, CW.1 is his son aged 15 years. On 14.02.2021 at about 9.30 p.m. Naveen @ Gundu Naik was murdered in his house situated in Karje village, Brahmavar Taluk. The appellant is the brother of Goutham.

¶26

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

¶27

That Naveen @ Gundu Naik was the elder person in the village. Accused No.7 was his neighbour. Accused Nos.1 and 7 were having objectionable relationship. Naveen @ Gundu Naik had advised accused Nos.1 and 7 in that regard. Being enraged by that, the accused conspired to commit his murder. In execution of such conspiracy, on 14.02.2021 at 9 p.m., taking opportunity of Naveen @ Gundu Naik being alone at home, the accused trespassed in to his house. Accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted him with club, accused No.3 slapped him on his cheeks, accused Nos.4 to 6 beat him and stamped him on his stomach. Accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted on his face, chest

¶28

CRL.A.No.1566/2021

¶29

¶30

and legs. Accused No.1 stamped on the neck of the injured Naveen @ Gundu Naik and committed his murder.

¶31

The trial Court has granted bail to accused No.6 on the medical ground. Accused No.7 was granted bail on the ground that she has only instigated/abetted accused No.1. The trial Court rejected the bail application of the appellant on the ground that there are allegations of assault by him.

¶32

The entire case is based on circumstantial

¶33

evidence. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The main apprehension of the prosecution is that if the bail is granted the appellant may threaten the widow and minor children of the deceased.

¶34

Having regard to the nature of the allegations against the appellant and when the case is based wholly on the circumstantial evidence, detention of the appellant by way of pre-trial conviction and sentence is not justifiable. Therefore the appeal is allowed.

¶35

CRL.A.No.1566/2021

¶36

¶37

The impugned order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Special Case No. 28/2021 is set aside.

¶38

The appellant’s bail application is allowed. He is granted bail in Crime No. 22/2021 of Brahmavar police station which is now pending in Spl. Case No.28/2021 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions/Special Judge, Udupi subject to the following conditions:

¶39

(i) The appellant shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶40

(ii) He shall appear before the Court as and when required for trial;

¶41

(iii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶42

(iv) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities of like nature.

¶43

(v) He shall not visit Karje village till the trial is concluded.

¶44

(vi) He shall mark the attendance before SHO Brahmavar police station on first Sunday each month till the trial is concluded.

¶45

CRL.A.No.1566/2021

¶46

¶47

(vii) If the appellant violates any of the bail conditions, liberty is reserved to the respondent to seek cancellation of bail.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

PKN

Sri Siddarath v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Siddarath v. State by

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

K S Narayan Since Dead by His Lr'S Smt. Prabhamani Vs State by Lokayuktha Police

Fyroz Pasha Vs State by Tumkuru Town Police

Nagesh S/O Late B S Raju Vs the State by Police Inspector

Jagadish Vs Girigowda. a. M.

Byrijayraj Vs State of Karnataka

Srinivasamurthy H v Vs State of Karnataka