Allowed

Lokesh M @ Loki v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2022CRL.A/2102/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal filed to set aside the refusal of bail. The court held that while the trial court correctly found that parity was not applicable due to the specific gravity of charges, since all main accused were already on bail, the present appellant was also entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

The order refusing bail was set aside; the appellant was released on bail with a bond of Rs. 200,000/- and two sureties, subject to conditions.

Lokesh M @ Loki Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2102 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Lokesh M @ Loki, S/o. Manjunatha, Aged about 20 years, R/at 1^st Cross, Near Jakkur Circle, Near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Jakkuru Post, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru City-560064.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri Harish Kumar H.C., Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Karnataka

¶12

By Sampigehalli Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

Narasimha @ Kate S/o. Late Narasimhamurthy, Aged about 28 years, R/at No.136, 2^nd Cross, Near Maramma Temple, Kogilu Grama, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru City-560064.

¶14

…Respondents

¶15

(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1; R2 - served)

¶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 10.10.2022 which is passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-71) in Spl.C.No.169/2020, enlarge him on bail in Cr.No.225/2019 of Sampige Halli Police Station, Bengaluru which is registered for the offence p/u/s 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 302, 120B, 109, 114 read with 149 of IPC and etc.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard Sri Harish Kumar H.C, learned counsel for the appellant and the Government Pleader. Notice of this appeal was served on the mother of the deceased Smt. Pushpa. There is no representation on her behalf.

¶21

This is an appeal under section 14(A)(2)

¶22

of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Appellant is accused No.5 in Spl.C.No.169/2020 on the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, CCH No.71, Bengaluru. Appellant is one among the accused who are facing trial for the

¶23

:: 3 ::

¶24

offences under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 302, 120B, 109, 114 read with section 149 IPC and section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The incident pertains to killing of one Bharath on 16.12.2019 in front of a wine shop, Kogilu. Motive is said to be enmity between the deceased and accused No.6. Since the deceased belonged to scheduled caste, the police invoked the offence under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶25

The appellant claimed bail on the ground of parity as accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7 have already been released on bail. But the trial court has held that parity is not applicable. The said finding of the trial court appears to be correct. Charge sheet clearly indicates that the main assailants are accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7. In

¶26

:: 4 ::

¶27

Criminal Appeal No. 122/2021, accused No.7 was admitted to bail. In this view, appellant also becomes entitled to claim bail. Therefore this appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following :

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(i) Appeal is allowed.

¶30

(ii) The order passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, CCH No.71, Bengaluru, dated 10.10.2022 in Spl. C. No. 169/2020 on the application under section 439 Cr.P.C is set aside, the said application is allowed.

¶31

(iii) The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellant is also subjected to the following conditions : -

¶32

:: 5 ::

¶33

(a) He shall not tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses.

¶34

(b) He shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial.

¶35

¶36

(d) He shall mark his attendance before the first respondent police station every week on a Sunday between 10.00 AM and 1.00 PM till conclusion of trial.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

ckl/-

Lokesh M @ Loki v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh M @ Loki 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

Nayaz @ Mohammed Siraj Vs State of Karnataka

Girishkumar @ Gir @ Girish Vs the State of Karnataka

Gangadharaiah @ Gangaraju Vs State of Karnataka by

Pavan @ Pavankumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C Nagarajaiah, Vs the C B I

Smt Prema Vs State of Karnataka by