Dismissed

Yogesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Apr 2022CRL.A/512/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed challenging rejection of regular bail application in murder and SC/ST (POA) Act case. Court noted accused being in custody for over two years and existence of eye-witnesses. Held delay insufficient and dismissed appeal. Liberty granted to seek bail in Sessions Court post eyewitness examination.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to appellant to move Sessions Court for bail after recording of evidence from eyewitnesses CW.12, CW.13 and other eyewitnesses if any.

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.512 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

YOGESH KUMAR S/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.23, 5^TH CROSS MANIVILAS GARDEN MARUTHI NAGAR KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU – 560 079

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

[BY SRI.CHANDRAPPA K.N., ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BASAVESHWARANAGARA POLICE STATION BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶13

JAGADISH K.B. S/O BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.384, 3^RD ROAD, 2^ND CROSS MULAKATTAMMA TEMPLE ROAD KAMALANAGARA BENGALURU – 560 079

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

[BY SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR K.K. - HCGP FOR R1 (PH)]

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL UNDER SECTION 14(A) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT IN SPL.C.NO.170/2020 (CR.NO.391/2019) AT BASAVESHWARANAGARA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN THE ABOVE CASE.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Learned HCGP takes notice for respondent No.1

¶21

This appeal is preferred praying to grant

¶22

regular bail to the appellant by setting aside the order dated 08.03.2022 passed in Spl.C.No.170/2020 by the Court of LXX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.

¶23

Heard both sides and perused the material on

¶24

record.

¶25

The appellant is accused of committing the

¶26

murder of one Sadashiva Murthy on 14.12.2019 at about

¶27

¶28

9.30 p.m., by assaulting with Macchu on his vital parts of the body.

¶29

Charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶30

This Court in Crl.P.No.7197/2020 vide order dated 07.12.2020, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the prayer of the appellant herein, who is arraigned as accused No.1.

¶31

The submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the charges are framed on 18.02.2021 and thereafter, there is no progress in the trial. He has submitted that the appellant/accused No.1 is in judicial custody since 02.01.2020.

¶32

The appellant is facing trial for the offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This Court has already dismissed the prayer of the

¶33

¶34

appellant for regular bail on merits. The period of incarceration now undergone by the accused-appellant cannot be a ground to enlarge him on bail as it is observed by this Court that there are eye witnesses to the incident in question and there are serious overt-acts alleged against him.

¶35

At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he may be permitted to move the Sessions Court once the evidence of the eyewitnesses are recorded.

¶36

Liberty sought is granted. Appellant is permitted to move the Sessions Court for bail after the examination of the eye witnesses i.e., CW.12 – Raju @ Anil and C.W.13

¶37

– Mohankumar and other eyewitnesses, if any.

¶38

With the above observation, appeal is dismissed .

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Yogesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh K L @ Yogi @ Gunda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Naveen Kumar B K Vs State by

Sri Yashwanth Vs State by Women Police Station

Aruna @ Arun Vs the State by S H O

Sri M Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Muthamma, W/O B. Nagaraju, Vs the State