Allowed

Navaneeth T @ Naveen v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2023CRL.A/2258/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the criminal appeal challenging the rejection of bail. The Court set aside the rejection order and granted regular bail to the appellants, fixing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with two sureties, imposed specific conditions regarding evidence tampering and police reporting.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Appellants released on bail with bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties; specific reporting conditions imposed.

Navaneeth T @ Naveen Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.A No. 2258 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2258 OF 2022

¶6

Between :

¶7

Navaneeth T @ Naveen S/o Thimmachari Aged about 26 years Residing at No.72 Behind Ayyappa Swamy Temple Cholanayakanahalli R.T.Nagara Post Bangalore-560 032.

¶8

Shashikumar M. S/o Muniraju Aged about 29 years Residing at No.74 Hebbala Guddahally R.T.Nagara Post Bangalore-560 32.

¶9

Digitally signed by C K LATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

Kiran M. S/o Muniraju Aged about 29 years Residing at No.74 Hebbala Guddahally R.T.Nagara Post Bangalore-560 32.

¶11

…Appellants

¶12

(By Kum. Raksha Keerthana K, Advocate for

¶13

Sri Kemparaju, Advocate)

¶14

And :

¶15

The State of Karnataka By Pattanayakanahalli Police

¶16

¶17

CRL.A No. 2258 of 2022

¶18

Rep. By State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangaluru-560 001.

¶19

Rangamani W/o Rangaiah Aged about 40 years R/o Hemdore village Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District Pin Code-560 062.

¶20

…Respondents

¶21

(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1; R2 is served)

¶22

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, praying to set aside the rejection order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru in Crl.Misc.No1704/2022 and release the appellants on regular bail in Crime No.61/2022 (Spl.C.No.506/2022) of the respondent Pattanayakanahalli Police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 302, 365, 367, 109, 114 R/w 149 of IPC, and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC/ST/(POA)Act Amendment Act 2015, pending on the file of Honble III Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru, in the interest of justice.

¶23

This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders, through video conferencing at Kalaburagi Bench, this day, the Court delivered following:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This is an appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging the order dated 29.11.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.1704/2022 on the file of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru. The

¶26

¶27

CRL.A No. 2258 of 2022

¶28

appellants are accused Nos.1 to 3. Appellants and other accused have been charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 302, 365, 367, 109, 114 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. The charge-sheet was registered in Crime No.61/2022 by the Pattanayakanahalli P.S.

¶29

Heard Kum. Raksha Keerthana K., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned Government Pleader. Respondent No.2 is reported to be served and there is no representation from her.

¶30

The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Rangaiah used to send obscene messages and photos to the mother and sister of accused No.1 and this instigated accused No.1 to take revenge against the deceased with the help of his friends i.e., other accused. Consequently, the deceased was kidnapped by the accused on 14.06.2022 from his home and brought to

¶31

¶32

CRL.A No. 2258 of 2022

¶33

Bengaluru. There are allegation that he was beaten in the vehicle in which he was brought to Bengaluru and also in a gym in Bengaluru. This resulted in the death of the deceased.

¶34

The court below has denied bail recording findings that the charge-sheet reflects prima facie involvement of the accused in commission of crime punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶35

Already this court granted bail to accused Nos.4 and 5 by allowing their Crl.A.Nos.2048/2022 and 1974/2022. Though ground of parity is available to accused Nos.2 and 3 in view of bail being granted to accused Nos.4 and 5, sofar as accused No.1 is concerned it may be stated that he might have resorted to kidnapping the deceased with the help of his friends to take revenge after coming to know that the deceased was in the habit of sending obscene messages and photos to his mother and sister. Otherwise it appears that the appellants are not involved in any criminal

¶36

¶37

CRL.A No. 2258 of 2022

¶38

cases. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that all the appellants may be admitted to bail by setting aside the impugned order. Hence the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Appeal is allowed.

¶41

The impugned order is set aside. Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be released on bail by obtaining from each of them a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. They are subjected to following conditions:

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

iii. Till conclusion of the trial, the appellants shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional police once in 15 days, preferably on every Sunday between 9.00 a.m. and 12.noon.

¶45

¶46

CRL.A No. 2258 of 2022

¶47

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.

¶48

SD/JUDGE

¶49

BL List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3

Navaneeth T @ Naveen v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navaneeth T @ Naveen 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V Bharath Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sindhudhara Vs State by

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

Ananda Vs State of Karnataka

Prasanna T S Vs State of Karnataka

Balram Singh Vs Shobabai W/O Dashrath Singh Mangoli