Allowed

R v. Balaji @ Balaji Reddy v State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2022CRL.A/2077/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the rejection of bail, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Court held that prima facie materials for an offence under Section 302 IPC were not forthcoming as there was no evidence of intention to commit an atrocity, justifying bail.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing bail rejected under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is set aside, and appellant released on bail subject to conditions.

R v Balaji @ Balaji Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2077 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

R.V.Balaji @ Balaji Reddy, S/o Vishwanatha Reddy, Aged about 39 years,

¶8

R/at Mydanahalli-Hosahalli Village, Kodagenahalli Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District-572127.

¶9

…Appellant

¶10

(By Sri U.Karthik Yadav, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

State of Karnataka, By Kodigenahalli Police Station, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District-572127 Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

Besthappa, S/o Late Mallappa, Aged about 58 years, R/at I.D.Halli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District-572124.

¶14

…Respondents

¶15

(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1; Sri T.Harish, Advocate for R2-Absent)

¶16

:: 2 ::

¶17

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the order dated 15.11.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1596/2022 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru by allowing this appeal and release the appellant/accused on bail in Cr.No.95/2022 for the offence p/u/s 302, 34 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act , 2015 on the file of the Special Court III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This is an appeal under section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter for short referred to as ‘the Atrocities Act’). Since by order dated 15.11.2022, the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, dismissed Crl. Misc. No. 1596/2022 filed under section 439 Cr.P.C for bail, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶21

Heard Sri U.Karthik Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and the Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Counsel for

¶22

respondent No.2 is absent.

¶23

:: 3 ::

¶24

FIR was registered on 17.10.2022 in Crime No. 95/2022 for the offences under section 302 IPC and sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The name of the deceased is one Purushotham Prasad, son of second respondent. FIR shows that the deceased was working in the garden land of the appellant. On 29.9.2022 at 12.30 PM, Purushotham Prasad went to the house of the appellant to collect his wages and at that time, it is alleged that the appellant assaulted Purushotham Prasad with clubs alleging that he had stolen banana stalks from his garden land. It is also stated that the appellant himself brought Purushotham Prasad to the police station where the matter was compromised between the two parties. A few days later, the health condition of Purushotham Prasad deteriorated and therefore he was admitted to the

¶25

:: 4 ::

¶26

hospital. He died on 17.10.2022 . After death, the second respondent approached the police

¶27

alleging that his son was killed by the appellant.

¶28

A plain reading of the FIR shows that the appellant suspected the deceased to have stolen banana stalks from his garden land. Absolutely there is nothing to indicate that the appellant had an intention to subject the deceased to atrocity as he belonged to scheduled caste. Moreover, the post mortem report shows that there was only one abrasion measuring 2 cm x 1 cm on the outer

¶29

aspect of the right ankle. The doctor who conducted post mortem examination did not give opinion and he kept it pending. Even otherwise, the injury of this type would not lead to death. For this reason, though the investigation is not yet over, it may be stated that prima facie materials in regard to offence punishable under section 302 IPC are not forthcoming. There was no impediment

¶30

:: 5 ::

¶31

for the trial court for granting bail at this stage. Therefore impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, the following :

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Appeal is allowed.

¶34

The order passed by the III

¶35

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, dated 15.11.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.1596/2022 is set aside.

¶36

The appellant shall be released on bail by obtaining from him a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

¶37

i. He shall not tamper with the evidence collected by the investigating officer and threaten the witnesses.

¶38

:: 6 ::

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

ckl/-

R v. Balaji @ Balaji Reddy v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R v. Balaji @ Balaji Reddy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Narendra Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sangamesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Kalyan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ravindrareddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Girraj Prasad Meena Vs Union of India

Dr Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru Vs State of Karnataka