Dismissed

Sri Shashidar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2023CRL.A/1157/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka on appeal allowed the filing of a criminal appeal, discussed the facts of a murder case, examined the bail application considerations, and upheld the Special Court's bail rejection order, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed, rejecting the prayer to set aside the bail order and release the appellant on regular bail.

Sri Shashidar Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:27363 CRL.A No. 1157 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1157 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SHASHIDAR, S/O. SHIVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAMBALU VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. ABHILASH KUMAR M. N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M. R. NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY DABASPETE POLICE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

SRI. LAKSHMANA, S/O. HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHIVAGANGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. RENUKARADHYA R. D, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:27363 CRL.A No. 1157 of 2023

¶18

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE BAIL ORDERS DATED 23.03.2023 PASSED IN SPL.CASE.NO.540/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set aside the order dated 15.03.2023 passed in Spl. Case No.540/2018 by II Additional District and Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. The impugned order has been passed on the bail application of the appellant/accused, rejecting his prayer to grant bail sought in Spl. Case No.540/2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:27363 CRL.A No. 1157 of 2023

¶24

The charge sheet has been filed against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Earlier, the appellant/accused has approached this Court seeking bail in Crl.P.No.5534/2019, and the same came to be rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.01.2020. Thereafter, in the midst of the trial, the appellant/accused filed bail application before the Special Court, which came to be rejected by the Special Court by the impugned order which has been challenged in this appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the eyewitness to the incident has turned hostile and there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, the appellant/accused is entitled to grant of bail.

¶26

Learned HCGP would contend that mainly because the eyewitnesses have turned hostile and there are inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W.1, the same is not a ground for grant of bail as observed by the learned Special Judge in the impugned order. The appellant/accused is not having permanent address and he has been driven out of the house by his parents', he had taken refuge in the temple and if

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:27363 CRL.A No. 1157 of 2023

¶29

the accused is released on bail, it is difficult to secure his presence. Considering all these aspects, Special Court has rightly rejected his bail application by the impugned order which does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶30

The allegation against the appellant/accused is that he has committed the murder of the wife of the complainant as she refused to cohabit with him by assaulting her with a knife on the chest and other parts of the body. The appellant/accused has been driven out of the house by his parents' and the complainant and his wife have given him shelter in the house.

¶31

The earlier bail petition of this appellant/accused has been rejected by this Court as there is a prima facie case against him and there are likelihood of the appellant/accused tampering with the witnesses. Now, the appellant/accused is seeking bail on the ground that eyewitnesses have turned hostile and there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1. The evidence is already recorded by the Trial Court. The same cannot be appreciated in the petition seeking bail. The trial of the case is at its fag end and only two witnesses have to be cross-examined by the appellant/accused. The

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:27363 CRL.A No. 1157 of 2023

¶33

appellant/accused changed his counsel when the case has been posted for recording the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and subsequently, he filed application seeking recall of the witnesses for cross-examination. As the trial is at fag end, if the appellant/accused is granted bail, it is difficult to secure his presence, as he is not having permanent place of abode as he has been driven out of the house by his parents' and he had taken shelter in the temple, as observed by the Special Court.

¶34

Considering all these aspects, the learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant/accused by the impugned order. There are no grounds to set aside the impugned order and grant bail to the appellant/accused. Hence, the appeal is dismissed .

¶35

The Special Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT: AVB

Sri Shashidar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shashidar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajaykumar G v Vs Channakrishna Reddy

Sri. Sanketh. K. Vs State by Cubbonpark Police

Likith @ Nikhil Vs the State of Karnataka

Sandeep Kumar N @ Dilip Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Ramesh Pai Sringeri Vs Sri H P Kumar

Mr Nagaraj a D Vs the State of Karnataka