Allowed

Sindhudhara v. State by

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2023CRL.A/2048/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed two criminal appeals filed by the State under Section 14(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, setting aside the trial court's bail orders and directing the release of the appellants on bail upon posting of bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were allowed; impugned bail orders set aside; accused no. 4 and 5 released on bail by posting bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Sindhudhara Vs State by — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2048 OF 2022

¶6

C/W

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1974 OF 2022

¶8

In Crl.A.No.2048/2022

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Sindhudhara, S/o. T.Ramanjani, Aged about 21 years, R/o at D.No.33, Near Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Cholanayakanahalli, R.T.Nagar Post, Bengaluru-560032. …Appellant

¶11

(By Sri C.Gopalakrishnamurthy, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

State by Pattanayakanahalli Police, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bengaluru-560001.

¶14

Rangamani, W/o Late Rangaiah, Aged about 40 years, R/o Hemdore Village,

¶15

¶16

Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District-577502.

¶17

…Respondents

¶18

(By Sri H.S.Shankar, HCGP for R1; R2 – served, unrepresented)

¶19

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 praying to set aside the order passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru in Crl.Misc.No.1594/2022 dated 09.11.2022 by allowing the appeal filed by the appellant for the offence p/u/s 143, 144, 147, 302, 365, 367,109, 114 read with 149 of IPC and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act and etc.

¶20

In Crl.A.No.1974/2022

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

V.Bharath Kumar, S/o Venkataswamy, Aged about 21 years, Residing at No.64, 6 th Cross, S.S.A.Road, Cholanayakanahally, R.T.Nagara Post, Bengaluru-560032. …Appellant (By Ms. K.Raksha Keerthana, Advocate)

¶23

AND:

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

Rangamani, W/o Rangaiah, Aged about 40 years, R/o Hemdore Village, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District-560062. …Respondents

¶27

(By Sri H.S.Shankar, HCGP for R1; R2 – served, unrepresented)

¶28

¶29

These Criminal Appeals coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

These two appeals are disposed of by a common

¶32

order. The appellant in Crl.A.No.2048/2022 is accused no.4 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.1974/2022 is accused no.5 in Cr.No.61/2022 registered by Pattanayakanahalli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District.

¶33

¶34

Appellants filed separate applications for bail viz., Crl.Misc.No.1594/2022 and Crl.Misc.No.1556/2022 in

¶35

the court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru. Since they have stood dismissed, the appellants have approached this court by filing appeal under section 14A (2) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [‘Atrocities Act’ for short].

¶36

It is to be mentioned here that the appellant in Crl.A.No.2048/2022 moved for bail before this court by filing Crl.A.No.1399/2022 and it was withdrawn by the appellant. However liberty was granted to him to move the trial court for bail after investigation was over. Likewise the appellant in Crl.A.No.1974/2022 also filed Crl.A.No.1672/2022 before this court and he also withdrew this appeal. After investigation was over, the appellants move the trial court for bail.

¶37

Charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 302, 365, 367, 109, 114 r/w 149 IPC and section 3(ii)(v) of Atrocities Act. In brief the prosecution case is that

¶38

¶39

one Rangaiah, the deceased used to send obscene messages to the mother and sister of accused no.1. This prompted accused no.1 to take revenge against the deceased and pursuant to the same he took the help of his friends including the appellants herein and, on 14.06.2022 at about 9.00 p.m. when the deceased was sitting inside his house after having dinner, accused no.1 along with other accused kidnapped him and brought the deceased to Hebbal, Bengaluru in a vehicle. It is alleged that in the vehicle the deceased was severely assaulted and after reaching Hebbal, the deceased was taken inside a gym and again assaulted. Thereafter the deceased was admitted to hospital. On 22.6.2022, Rangaiah died. If the order impugned in both the appeals are read, the court below appears to have not assessed the charge sheet. Its opinion is that if bail is granted to the appellants, they may indulge in tampering the evidence and influencing the witnesses.

¶40

I have heard Sri. C.Gopalakrishnamurthy, learned counsel for the appellant in

¶41

¶42

Crl.A.No.2048/2022 and Ms. Smt. K.Raksha Keerthana, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1974/2022 and also the Government Pleader Sri.H.S.Shankar.

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellants refer to three statements said to have been given by eye witness viz., Karan Jadhav. He is shown as the driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was brought from Sira to Hebbal. Perusal of these statement makes it clear that there are some inconsistencies with regard to the overt act attributed to the appellants. Moreover charge sheet clearly indicates that Naveen is the main accused. Because the deceased used to send obscene messages to mother and sister of accused no.1, he took the help of the other accused in kidnapping the deceased from Sira. Even the overt act of assaulting is more attributed to accused no.1 than the other accused. Moreover the Sessions Court has already granted bail to accused no.6 and 7. The overt act attributed to the appellants is same as the overt act attributed to accused no.6 and 7 and

¶44

¶45

therefore appellants are entitled to claim parity. Investigation is also completed. The appellants have undertaken to abide by any condition that the court imposes on them. Therefore there was no impediment for the trial court to grant bail to the appellants. In this view appeals deserve to be allowed. Hence the following :

¶46

ORDER

¶47

Appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. Accused no.4 and 5 shall be released on bail

¶48

by obtaining from each of them a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. They are subjected to following conditions:

¶49

i. They shall not tamper with the evidence collected by the investigating officer and threaten the witnesses

¶50

ii. They shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial.

¶51

iii. Till conclusion of the trial, the appellants shall mark their attendance

¶52

¶53

before the jurisdictional police once in 15 days, preferably on every Sunday between 9 a.m. and 12 noon.

¶54

iv. They shall not get involved in any other criminal case/s in future. In case if any FIR is registered against them, the same will be considered for cancellation of bail.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Sindhudhara v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindhudhara v. State by

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

Mr M Samil Shah S/O Mohammed Kunhi Vs State by Inspector of Police

Sri Mahesh @ Mahesh Bandari Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Girraj Prasad Meena Vs Union of India

V Bharath Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Navaneeth T @ Naveen Vs the State of Karnataka

Ananda Vs State of Karnataka