Allowed

Sandeep @ Sandeep Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Jan 2022CRL.A/1924/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against the trial court's rejection of bail. The single judge granted bail to the appellant, finding the pre-trial detention unjustifiable given the incomplete investigation, lack of trial establishment of genuine convictions, and absence of test identification.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside bail is set aside. Bail is granted to the appellant in Crime No.93/2020 subject to a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties, appearance for trial, and non-tamp

Sandeep @ Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.A.No.1924/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1924/2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SANDEEP @ SANDEEP KUMAR S/O MUDLAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.86, 4^TH CROSS NEAR K.G.NAGAR POLICE STATION RAMAKRISHNA MUTT LAYOUT K.G.NAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH – 560019 NOW RESIDING AT GUTTAHALLI, BANGALORE ... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.NAZIMA TASNEEM, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TUMKUR TOWN POLICE TUMKUR – 572 101

¶13

NARASIMHAMURTHY K

¶14

S/O LATE KARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS EDITOR OF ‘TUMAKURU SIMHA’ RESIDING AT ACHAR STREET BEHIND AANE MATHA CHICKPETE, TUMKUR – 572 101 ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.SHANKAR H S, HCGP FOR R1;

¶16

CRL.A.No.1924/2021

¶17

¶18

VIDE ORDER DATED 27.01.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE ON R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER 06.02.2021 IN CRL.MISC. NO.97/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT AND GRANT REGULAR BAIL IN SPL.CASE NO.184/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Aggrieved by the rejection of his bail application,

¶23

accused No.1 in Crime No.93/2020 of Tumkur Town Police Station has preferred the above appeal.

¶24

The appellant and five others are charge sheeted in Crime No.93/2020 of Tumkur Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 120B read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 on the basis of complaint of CW.1 Narasimha murthy.

¶25

CRL.A.No.1924/2021

¶26

¶27

CW.1- a journalist belongs to Scheduled

¶28

Caste. It is alleged that being enraged by the article published by him in his news paper against accused No.6, he along with accused No.2 conspired to commit his murder. It is alleged that in execution of such conspiracy he hired accused No.1-appellant, accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 to kill CW.1. On 25.06.2020 at 6.00 p.m. at Achar Street of Chickpet, Tumkur, the appellant and accused Nos.2 to 5 assaulted CW.1. It is alleged that appellant assaulted CW.1 with chopper and caused grievous injuries on his left arm and both legs.

¶29

The trial Court has rejected the bail petition

¶30

of the appellant on the ground that the accused has assaulted on vital part of the body and there is recovery of part of the supari money from the appellant.

¶31

CRL.A.No.1924/2021

¶32

¶33

The other ground is that he is involved in

¶34

Crime No.46/2010 of Chennammanakere Acchukattu Police Station and Crime No.19/2013 of Bengaluru Kempegowda Police Station. Accused Nos.2 to 5 are granted bail by the trial Court. Accused No.6 is said to be the master mind of the crime. This Court in Crl.P.No.5914/2020 has granted bail to him on 30.11.2020.

¶35

The appellant was a stranger to CW.1. According to the prosecution, at the time of commission of the offence, assailants had covered their faces with masks. No Test Identification Parade is conducted. The circumstance of recovery of money has to be proved at trial.

¶36

So far as the involvement of the appellant in other cases, his conviction in any earlier case is not established. As per the prosecution itself he was on

¶37

CRL.A.No.1924/2021

¶38

¶39

bail in those two cases. The investigation is already completed. Except for trial, the detention of the appellant is not required for any other purpose. The appellant is in judicial custody since 19.10.2020.

¶40

Under the circumstances, it is a fit case to grant bail. The trial Court without noticing the aforesaid circumstances has subjected the appellant to pretrial sentence which is not justifiable. Therefore the appeal is allowed.

¶41

The impugned order is hereby set aside. The appellant is granted bail in Crime No.93/2020 of Tumkur Police Station which is now pending in Spl. Case No.184/2021 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur subject to the following conditions:

¶42

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

¶43

CRL.A.No.1924/2021

¶44

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Akc

Sandeep @ Sandeep Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep @ Sandeep Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Khan @ Shabeer Vs State by Arasikere Railway Police

Sri Anil Satish Pinto Vs M/S Jbs Ready Consulting

Sri Kumaraswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Ashfaq Rasheed Shaik Vs Smt. Meena Ullas

Mr. Ashfaq Rasheed Shaik Vs Smt. Meena Ullas

Mr. Ashfaq Rasheed Shaik Vs Smt. Meena Ullas