Dismissed

Abhishek @ Choki v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jan 2022CRL.A/1618/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Appeal challenged the rejection of a bail application filed under the Prevention of Atrocities Act in a murder case involving Scheduled Caste/tribe offences. The High Court held that due to the gravity of the allegations and incriminating eyewitness testimony, the rejection of bail was proper and dismissed the appeal without engaging in a full trial review.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal was dismissed; the earlier order rejecting the bail application was upheld.

Abhishek @ Choki Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.A.No.1618/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1618/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ABHISHEK@ CHOKI S/O LATE SHUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NO.7, 5^TH CROSS HOYSALA LAYOUT SERVICE STATION ROAD AMRUTHHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 092. ... APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.NATARAJ.D, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALUIRU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTIOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

SATHISH.S S/O LATE SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL DASARAHALLI VILLAGE H.A. FARM POST, BENGALURU-560 024. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHANKAR H.S, HCGP FOR R.1 R.2 SERVED)

¶13

CRL.A.No.1618/2021

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT, 1989) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2020 IN CRL.MISC.NO.6795/2020 PASSED BY THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.760/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Aggrieved by the rejection of his bail application accused No.2 in Crime No.112/2020 of Amruthahalli police station which is now pending in Special Case No.760/2020 on the file of the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru has preferred the above appeal.

¶19

The appellant and accused Nos.1 and 3 are facing trial in Special Case No.760/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 201, 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment

¶20

CRL.A.No.1618/2021

¶21

¶22

Act, 2014 on the basis of the complaint of CW-1/Sri S.Sathish.

¶23

Deceased Harish belonged to scheduled caste.

¶24

CW-1 is the brother & accused No.1 is the wife of Harish. CW-9 is the son of accused No.1 and deceased Harish.

¶25

Prosecution case in brief is as follows:

¶26

Accused No.1 and the appellant were having illicit relationship and that was resisted by deceased. Therefore accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired to commit the murder of Harish. They hired accused No.3 to commit murder of Harish. In execution of such conspiracy, during the intervening night on 9/10-07-2020 at 1 a.m. when Harish was sleeping, the appellant with a size stone crushed the head of Harish and accused No.3 stabbed Harish and committed his murder. To screen the evidence of offence accused dumped the dead body in nearby storm water drain.

¶27

The trial Court rejected the bail application of the appellant. Therefore he has filed the above appeal. He

¶28

CRL.A.No.1618/2021

¶29

¶30

is seeking bail on the ground of parity and that there is no cogent and consistent material against him.

¶31

The copy of the order in Criminal Appeal No.1211/2021 produced by the appellant shows that accused No.3 was granted bail on the ground that the eyewitness CW-9 has not identified him. However, the very same order indicates that the bail application of accused No.1 the wife is rejected.

¶32

The allegation against the appellant is serious than the allegation against accused No.1 as she had not physically assaulted. PW-9 child eyewitness in his statement before I.O as well as before Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.PC. has implicated the appellant.

¶33

Having regard to the gravity of the offence and

¶34

the material on record, it is not a fit case to grant bail. Therefore appeal was dismissed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

PKN

Abhishek @ Choki v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek @ Choki 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Doddegowda a T Vs State by

Sri. Syed Wazeer Pasha Vs Sri. Arifulla Khan

Smt v R Janaki Vs Sri Sridhara

Sri. B. M. Rangaswamy Vs Sri. M. Shamanna

Delhi Lamps Vs Lighting Zone and Appliances

Prakash Valyapura Vs State of Karnataka