Allowed

Manjunatha R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2022CRL.A/1935/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed under the Prevention of Atrocities Act to set aside rejection of bail. The High Court held that since appellants' names were not in the FIR or victim statement and no material linked them to the incident, bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

Appellants granted bail in Crime No.179/2021 subject to personal bond of Rs.25,000, appearance for trial, non-tampering of witnesses, no criminal activities, and monthly investigation attendance.

Manjunatha R Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.A.No.1935/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1935/2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MANJUNATHA.R. S/O. GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO.7, 2^ND CROSS NANDHEESHWARA LAYOUT CHEEMAASANDRA BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU-560 049

¶10

PERMANENT R/AT HAROHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK- 562 120 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶11

MANOHARA.G.N. S/O. LATE G.K.NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT GANAGALU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK- 562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT …APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI M.V.NAVEEN REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NANDAGUDI POLICE STATION HOSAKOTE TALUK- 562 122 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

Crl.A.No.1935/2021

¶16

¶17

MANJUNATHA

¶18

S/O. LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NANDAGUDI TOWN HOSAKOTE TALUK- 562 122 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶19

ANAND S/O. NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NANDAGUDI TOWN HOSAKOTE TALUK- 562 122 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI SHANKAR.H.S.HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 SERVED)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.179/2021

¶22

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

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Heard.

¶25

Aggrieved by the rejection of their bail

¶26

application, accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crime No.179/2021 of Nandagudi police station have preferred the above appeal.

¶27

Crl.A.No.1935/2021

¶28

¶29

Nandagudi police registered Crime

¶30

No.179/2021 initially against Rohan, Madhu, Chandan (Accused Nos.1 to 3) and three other unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 143, 147, 149, 148, 307 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 on the basis of the complaint of Manjunatha brother of the victim.

¶31

The victim Anand and the complainant belonged to the scheduled caste. On 26.11.2021 at 21.15 hours, Anand was found assaulted near Chinmaya Kabab Centre of Nandagudi Town, Hoskote Taluk. It is alleged that the victim questioned accused No.1 abusing him with reference to his caste. Enraged by that, the accused allegedly abused Anand in foul language with reference to his caste and one of them assaulted him with beer bottle on his head causing injuries.

¶32

As per the prosecution records, on learning about the incident, the complainant shifted the victim to nearest hospital. Thereafter he was taken to NVJ medical

¶33

Crl.A.No.1935/2021

¶34

¶35

College Hospital. The appellants were arrested in the case on the basis of the alleged CCTV clippings. According to the prosecution, the appellants showed up with the accused at the scene of offence in those CCTV clippings.

¶36

The trial Court rejected the bail application of the appellants on the ground that there is prima-facie case to show that they have committed the offences alleged against them. In the first information report, at the first instance, names of the appellants is not forthcoming. Even in the victim’s statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, he has not mentioned the names of appellants. The discharge summary indicates that the victim himself was in inebriated condition. There is no material of he identifying the appellants. The appellants are in judicial custody since 06.12.2021.

¶37

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the trial Court was not justified in holding that there is prima-facie material to show the involvement of the appellants. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.

¶38

Crl.A.No.1935/2021

¶39

¶40

The appellants are granted bail in Crime

¶41

No.179/2021 of Nandagudi police station, subject to the following conditions:

¶42