Allowed

Gangadharaiah @ Gangaraju v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2022CRL.A/1970/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the appellant's application under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act to set aside the lower court's bail rejection. The court held that since a co-accused was granted bail for the same overt act, the appellant is also entitled to bail. The order denying bail was quashed, and the appellant was ordered to be released on bail with conditions

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is set aside and the application is allowed; the appellant is released on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties.

Gangadharaiah @ Gangaraju Vs State of Karnataka by — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1970 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Gangadharaiah @ Gangaraju, S/o Late Kempaiah, Aged about 32 years, R/at D.Hosahalli Village, Huliyurdurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkuru District.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri Mahesh S.N., Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Karnataka

¶12

By Huliyurdurga Police Station,

¶13

Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District, Represented by Government Pleader, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru City.

¶14

Madhusudhan,

¶15

S/o Late Thimmaiah, Aged about 40 years, Residing at Hosapete, Huliyurdurga Town, Kunigal Taluk.

¶16

…Respondents

¶17

(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1;

¶18

R2 – served)

¶19

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.670/2022 dated

¶20

:: 2 ::

¶21

07.06.2022 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, and pleased to enlarge him on bail in Spl.C.C.No.150/2022 for alleged offence p/u/s 302 and 201 of IPC and u/s 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act 1989 pending on the file of the Hon’ble III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru.

¶22

This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This is an appeal filed under Section 14A(2)

¶25

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (‘SC/ST Act’ for short), questioning the correctness of the order dated 07.06.2022 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in Crl.Misc.No.670/2022, rejecting the appellant’s application for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in connection with Crime No.4/2022 registered by the first respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶26

:: 3 ::

¶27

Heard Sri Mahesh S.N, learned counsel

¶28

for the appellant and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Respondent No.2 is served with notice, but he has not appeared before the court.

¶29

The appellant is accused No.1 in Spl.C.No.150/2022 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru. The appellant and another accused are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶30

It is not necessary to narrate the facts relating to the incident, suffice it to say that the incident pertains to killing of one Anjinappa in the intervening night of 19/20.01.2022. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.

¶31

Challenging the very same order, accused No.2 approached this court by filing

¶32

:: 4 ::

¶33

Crl.A.No.1463/2022. Said appeal was allowed on 17.10.2022. The overt-act attributed to the appellant is same as the overt-act attributed to accused No.2. Though it is specifically stated that the appellant slit the neck of Anjinappa with a knife, equal participation of accused No.2 is also forthcoming. In this view the appellant is entitled to claim bail. Therefore the order of the court below cannot be sustained. Hence the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Appeal is allowed.

¶36

The order passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru dated 07.06.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.670/2022 on the application of the appellant under section 439 Cr.P.C., is set aside. The said application is allowed.

¶37

The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his executing him a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) and providing two sureties for the

¶38

:: 5 ::

¶39

likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

¶40

i. He shall not tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses.

¶41

ii. He shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial.

¶42

iii. He shall not get involved in any other criminal case/s in future. In case any FIR is registered against him, the same will be considered for cancellation of bail.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Kmv/-

Gangadharaiah @ Gangaraju v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadharaiah @ Gangaraju v. State of Karnataka 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

Sri V.D Kurtakoti Vs State by Cbi/Acb

Sri Jayarama Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Ambika Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramu @ Dande Palli Ramu Vs State of Karnataka

Nayaz @ Mohammed Siraj Vs State of Karnataka

Girishkumar @ Gir @ Girish Vs the State of Karnataka