Allowed

Mukunda v. the State by Metagalli Police

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2022CRL.A/1808/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, set aside the order rejecting bail for the appellant, and granted bail citing parity with another accused.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside; the appellant was granted bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000, appearance at trial, and restrictions on tampering with witnesses and criminal

Mukunda Vs the State by Metagalli Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.A.No.1808/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1808/2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MUKUNDA S/O SHARMAJI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS NO.702, 13^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN B.M.SHREE NAGAR, METAGALLI MYSORE – 570 0196 ... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.RAJU C N, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE BY METAGALLI POLICE MYSORE REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001

¶13

SRI.AVINASH B S S/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.102/B-1 SOMANNA’S RENT HOUSE B.M.SHREE NAGARA METAGALLI, MYSORE – 570 016 ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

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

¶15

CRL.A.No.1808/2021

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(1) OF SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU IN SPL.C.NO.369/2020 DATED 23.11.2021, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.87/2020 OF METAGALLI POLICE, MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302,201,323,504 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 AND ETC.

¶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 bail application Accused No.3 in Special Case No.369/2020 on the file of the VI Addl. District Judge and Special Court for trial of the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has filed the above appeal.

¶21

The appellant and accused Nos.1 and 2 are facing trial in Special Case No.369/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 323, 504 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, 2014

¶22

CRL.A.No.1808/2021

¶23

¶24

on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the respondent police in Crime No.87/2020 of their police Station.

¶25

The case of the prosecution is as follows:

¶26

Deceased Somashekar @ Dedly belonged to Scheduled Tribe. On 24.08.2020 at about 10.30 p.m. in the farm land of CW.15, a quarrel ensued between the accused and the victim for petty matter. Accused No.1 stabbed the victim with dagger and caused his death. The appellant provoked the victim to initiate quarrel. Accused No.2 had kept the dagger in his motor cycle that was used for commission of the offence.

¶27

The direct allegation of stabbing the victim and causing death are against accused No.1. The appellant stands on the better pedestal than that of accused No.2 who allegedly carried the weapon. This Court has granted bail to accused No.2 on 23.03.2021 in Crl.P.No.474/2021. Therefore, on the ground of parity, the appellant is entitled for grant of bail. The trial Court has not referred to the bail order of this Court granted in favour of accused No.2.

¶28

CRL.A.No.1808/2021

¶29

¶30

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the

¶31

impugned order is not sustainable.

¶32

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.11.2021 in Spl.Case No.369/2020 is hereby set aside.

¶33

The appellant is granted bail in Spl. Case No.369/2020 on the file of the VI Addl. District & Special Judge, Mysuru subject to the following conditions:

¶34

(i) The appellant shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

akc

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

Mukunda v. the State by Metagalli Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukunda v. the State by Metagalli Police

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 S Lokesh Vs Sri M Rajagopal

Prasanna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesh Y S Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Muneendra Vs State of Karnataka

Karthikeyan Ganeshan Vs Smt Sathya Geetha Rani

Mrs. Arlene Pinto Vs Mr Sunil Joseph Pinto