Criminal Appeal filed by accused No. 2 and 3 in a murder and atrocities case. The High Court set aside the Special Court's bail rejection order, granting them bail on personal bond and other conditions.
Appeal allowed; impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellants granted bail on personal bond for Rs. 1 lakh with one surety subject to conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1242 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, ADVOCATE)
…APPELLANTS
AND:
NC: 2023:KHC:28955 CRL.A No. 1242 of 2023
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R, HCGP AND SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP FOR R1; R2 PRESENT PHYSICALLY BEFORE THE COURT)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.94/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.94/2023 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.307, 302, 201, 120-B R/W SEC.149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 2015 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA REGISTERED BY SHIRALAKOPPA P.S.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellants / accused No.2 and 3 praying to set aside the order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, in Spl. Case No.94/2023, wherein the bail application of the appellants / accused No.2 and 3 and accused Nos. 1, 4, and 5 in respect of Crime No.256/2022 of Shiralakoppa Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 201, 120(B) read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, came to be rejected.
One Sri Manjunath S Kuri, Police Sub-Inspector of Shiralakoppa Police Station filed a complaint and based on the said complaint a case came to be registered in Cr. No.256/2022
of Shiralakoppa Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 201, 120(B) read with 149 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After investigation charge sheet came to be filed against the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under section 307, 302, 201, 120(B) read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
Court. It is further case of the prosecution that when the deceased Nagendrappa did not die in the said accident, again on 29.11.2022 they came to know that deceased Nagendrappa was going to the Court, as informed by the accused No.1. Accused No.3 took Goods Vehicle of his friend Muktiyar Ahmad bearing Registration No. KA-25 D-4245 Ashok Layland Goods Vehicle to Shiralakoppa. At about 11.30am, Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, near Shikaripura APMC, conspired to kill the deceased Nagendrappa and in turn, accused No.1 promised them to give a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thereafter, accused Nos.4 and 5 took some pesticide tablets thrown by some person and made mixture of it with water in a bottle and confirmed the arrival of deceased through accused No.3. After deceased Nagendrappa came to Shikaripura, accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 in the said Goods Vehicle went from Punedahalli towards Kuskoor at about 1.15 pm and at about 2.00 pm they stopped the vehicle near a Temple and at that time they had taken deceased Nagendrappa in there Vehicle and made the deceased to drink the said mixture and when he raised his hand to avoid, they pressed his mouth and made him to suffocate and committed his murder. They put the dead body of deceased Nagendrappa in a charandi
situated by the side of the road and they also threw the articles with them in different places.
against him and the overt acts alleged against accused Nos.4 and 5. The allegation against appellant No.1 - accused No.2 is that he made available the goods vehicle belonging to his friend, which is used for commission of the offences. Learned Counsel for appellants further submits that appellant No.1 - accused No.2 is suffering from heart decease and stent has been inserted. She further submits that appellant No.2 - accused No.3 is having wife and children to look after. She contends that without considering all these aspect, learned Session Judge has passed the impugned order, which requires interference by this Court. With this, she prays to allow the appeal and grant bail to appellants.
No.1 - accused No.2 is having motive to commit the murder of the deceased, who is his father, who did not give any share to him. The appellant No.2 - accused No.3 has furnished the vehicle to accused Nos.4 and 5 and he was with them at the time of commission of offence. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The charge sheet material show prima facie case against the appellants and other accused. The Special Court has rightly rejected bail application
which does not call for interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
that she has objection for grant of bail to the appellants. She has further stated that she is the second wife of deceased Nagendrappa and appellant No.1 - accused No.2 is son of deceased Nagendrappa through his first wife.
NC: 2023:KHC:28955 CRL.A No. 1242 of 2023
evidence. The prosecution has to establish each and other circumstances to prove its case. Without considering these aspects the learned Sessions Judge passed impugned order, which requires interference by this court.
ORDERS
(2) The impugned order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, in Spl. Case No.94/2023, is set aside in so far as appellants - accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned.;
Sd/JUDGE
VK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT:STK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Appeal filed by accused No. 2 and 3 seeking to set aside bail rejection order should be allowed.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Special Court's bail rejection order in a case involving murder and atrocities.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Umesha N.
Rizwan Ahmed @ Rizwan
State of Karnataka
Smt. Savita
Shivashankar Amannavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
