Allowed

Rakesh. M @ Gunda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Aug 2023CRL.A/1269/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against rejection of bail. Appellants charged under IPC and SC/ST (POA) Act for assault and abuse. Court held insufficient overt acts by appellants and granted bail with stringent conditions to prevent threats and tampering.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside; bail granted to appellants subject to execution of bond with surety, non-threat to witnesses, no tampering, no new offences, and appearance before court.

Rakesh. M @ Gunda Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:30315 CRL.A No. 1269 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1269 OF 2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

RAKESH M., @ GUNDA, S/O LATE. MUNIKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT YELLAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, NEAR WATER TANK, AMRUTHAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 092.

¶6

BHASKAR, S/O ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.227, AMBEDKAR STREET, BYTARAYANAPURA,

¶7

BANGALORE - 560 092.

¶8

…APPELLANTS

¶9

(BY SRI. SANMUKH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHETHAN KUMAR B. A., ADVOCATE)

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY AMRUTHAHALLY P.S., REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

B.R. YUVA ABRAHAMLINKAN, S/O B.R. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.36, 3RD CROSS,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:30315 CRL.A No. 1269 of 2023

¶16

MUNIGURAPPA LAYOUT, AMRUTHAHALLI - 560 092.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ASHWATH C. M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:13.06.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (CCH-71) GRANT BAIL TO THE APPELLANTS (ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3) IN CR.NO.105/2023 OF RESPONDENT AMRUTHAHALLY POLICE, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 307, 504, 109 R/W 34 OF ICP AND SEC. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) OF SC-ST ACT 1989, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (CCH-71), BENGLAURU AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.2

¶23

and 3 praying to set-aside the order dated 13.06.2023 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4828/2023 by LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, where-under the bail petition of the appellants sought in respect of Crime No. 105/2023 of Amruthahally Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 and 109 read with section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:30315 CRL.A No. 1269 of 2023

¶25

and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST (PoA) Act' for short) came to be rejected.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant- respondent No.2 went to the shop of accused No.4 for purchase of idol and there was exchange of words between them with regard to quoting higher prices for the idol. In that regard, accused No.4 made a phone call to accused No.1 intimating him that complainant made galata and asked him to finish the complainant. On the next day, accused No.4 made a call to accused No.1 and made a conference call to respondent No.2 and asked him to come to Amruthahally Circle and when respondent No.2 went there, accused Nos. 1 to 3 abused him and accused No.1 assaulted him near his left eye with hand and thereafter,

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:30315 CRL.A No. 1269 of 2023

¶29

try to assault him with knife near his right eye and he escaped the said hit. He stated that accused No.3 assaulted him with club on his right thigh and caused injury and accused No.2 assaulted him with hand on his body and caused pain and thereafter, accused No.1 abused him by taking his caste name and accused Nos.2 and 3 abused him in filthy language. The case came to be registered against accused Nos. 1 to 3 on the said complaint filed by respondent No.2. During the course of investigation, the appellants/accused Nos. 2 and 3 were arrested on 16.05.2023 and they are in judicial custody. Now, the learned counsel for the appellant has furnished charge sheet papers stating that charge sheet has been filed by accused Nos. 1 to 4 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 and 109 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3 to 5 of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.4828/2023 seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order, which is challenged in this appeal.

¶30

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:30315 CRL.A No. 1269 of 2023

¶31

The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the accusation against accused No.2 is that he assaulted respondent No.2 with hand on his body and caused pain and against accused No.3 is that he assaulted respondent No.2 with club on his thigh. The wound certificate of respondent No.2 showed two injuries, one is simple injury and another one is grievous injury. Except these two injuries on the face, there are no corresponding injuries regarding overt acts of appellant No.2/accused No.2. Respondent No.2 has been discharged from the hospital. Knife has been seized by the Police wherein respondent No.2 gave it to the Police under mahazar. The offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is not attracted against the appellants. The charge sheet is filed and the appellants are not required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶32

Per Contra , learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that on looking to the averments of the compliant, appellant No.1/accused No.2 assaulted

¶33

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:30315 CRL.A No. 1269 of 2023

¶34

with hand on his body and appellant No.2/accused No.3 assaulted the complainant with club on his thigh. The wound certificate reveals that one is simple injury and another one is grievous injury. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are having criminal antecedents and accused No.2 is involved in two criminal cases, out of them, one is for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, whereas, accused No.3 is involved in three criminal cases, out of them, two cases are for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The alleged incident has been witnessed by a person who is cited as CW-2. Considering all these aspects, the learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail petition of the appellants. With this, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶35

The Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued that the quarrel took place between respondent No.2 and appellant No.4 as appellant No.4 quoted higher price for the idol, for that at the instance of accused No.4, accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted respondent No.2 and caused

¶36

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:30315 CRL.A No. 1269 of 2023

¶37

injury and they have also abused him taking his caste in filthy language. The appellants are having criminal antecedents. If they are granted bail, there are chances of repeating the offences. With this, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2, the Court has perused the impugned order and charge sheet material. As per the charge sheet, accused No.2 assaulted the complainant/respondent No.2 with hands on his body and caused pain and accused No.3 assaulted the complainant/respondent No.2 with club on his right thigh. Looking to the wound certificate, there is no corresponding injury on thigh or other parts of the body except two injuries on the face. The main overt-act alleged against accused No.1 who has assaulted with hand near right eye and also assaulted him with knife. No serious overt-acts are alleged against the appellants. As the charge sheet is filed,

¶39

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:30315 CRL.A No. 1269 of 2023

¶40

the appellants are not required for custodial interrogation. Merely because the appellants are involved in other criminal cases, is not a ground for rejecting their petition. The apprehension of the prosecution that if the appellants are granted bail, they will commit similar offences and threaten the complainant & other prosecution witnesses, can be met

¶41

with by imposing stringent conditions. In the result, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The appeal is allowed .

¶44

The impugned order dated 13.06.2023, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4828/2023, by the LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions and Special Judge, Bengaluru is set-aside. Consequently Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4828/2023 is allowed and the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 are granted bail in Crime No.105/2023 of Amruthahally Police Station, subject to the following conditions:

¶45

i. The appellants/accused No. 2 and 3 shall execute a bail bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for like-sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:30315 CRL.A No. 1269 of 2023

¶48

ii. The appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.

¶49

iii. The appellants/accused No. 2 and 3 shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses .

¶50

iv. The appellants/accused No.2 and 3 shall not involve in commission of any offences.

¶51

v. The appellants/accused No. 2 and 3 shall appear before the Jurisdictional Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate for speedy disposal of the case.

¶52

If the appellants are found involved in commission of any offences hereinafter, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of their bail.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

¶55

CT:PH

Rakesh. M @ Gunda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh. M @ Gunda 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

K Dhanush Vs the State of Karnataka

Elumalai Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ashok N Pai Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Dhanalakshmi @ Thanuja Vs Mr M N Yadiyurappa @ Chandru

Dr C B Murthy @ Chingategere Basappa Murthy Vs Sri C R Vishwaprakash

Sri Vinodha R Vs State of Karnataka