Allowed

Sri. Sanketh. K. v. State by Cubbonpark Police

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2023CRL.A/338/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In appeal against the rejection of bail, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the bail petition of accused No. 8. The court observed that no overt act was alleged against the appellant and the case relied on circumstantial evidence, warranting interference with the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

The bail petition of the appellant stands allowed; accused to be released on bail securing Rs. 1,00,000 bond and ensuring no tampering with witnesses.

Sri. Sanketh. K. Vs State by Cubbonpark Police — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:27107 CRL.A No. 338 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 338 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SANKETH. K S/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT No. 177 AGALAKURKI VILLAGE AGALAKURKI POST CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI PRAVEEN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

STATE BY CUBBONPARK POLICE KASTURBA ROAD, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY: THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BANGALORE.

¶15

SRI HANUMANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT No.462, 4^TH CROSS HARINAGAR, 8^TH MAIN ROAD KOTHANUR MAIN RAOD BANGALORE – 560 062.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:27107 CRL.A No. 338 of 2023

¶20

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2023 OF THE HONOURABLE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-71) IN CRL.MISC.No.378/2023 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 343, 364, 307, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC, AND SECTIONS 3(2)(V), 3(1)(e) OF SC AND ST PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT 1989 BEFORE THE CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by accused No. 8 praying to set aside the order dated 03.02.2023 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 378/2023 by LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru rejecting the bail petition sought in respect of crime No. 138/2022 of Cubbon Park Police station for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 343, 364, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(e) of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

¶25

learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 – State. On service of

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:27107 CRL.A No. 338 of 2023

¶27

notice respondent No. 2 remained absent and

¶28

unrepresented.

¶29

Gist of the prosecution case is that on 22.12.2022 the ACP of Cubbon Park Sub-Division received anonymous complaint with pen-drive which was registered under application No. Q1PS/PET/GNL-249/2002 who inturn forwarded the said complaint to PI of Cubbon Park Police Station to ascertain the truth of the complaint. Accordingly the PSI of Cubbon Park Police Station collected information

¶30

and lodged complaint stating that deceased Sharath Kumar was a resident of Konanakunte village and had borrowed loan from various persons and did not repay the same. Accordingly the persons who had given the loan to the deceased Sharath Kumar entrusted the work of recovery of loan to accused No. 3 who inturn entrusted the recovery to accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 8. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 8 kidnapped the deceased Sharath Kumar in the car belonging to accused No. 10 with the assistance of accused Nos. 4 and 6 and he was wrongfully confined in

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:27107 CRL.A No. 338 of 2023

¶32

the farm house belonging to accused No. 8 for 6 to 7 days and during the said period he was brutally assaulted and caused to death. Thereafter, the accused persons shifted the dead body of the deceased in the car belonging to accused No. 9 with the help of accused Nos. 4 and 7 and threw the same in Charmadi Ghat with an intention to cause disappearance of evidence.

¶33

Charge sheet came to be filed against 12 accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 343, 364, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(e) of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant – accused No. 8 came to be arrested on 27.12.2022 and he is in judicial custody. The appellant – accused No. 8 filed Crl.Misc. No.378/2023 seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order. The appellant – accused No. 8 has challenged the same in this appeal.

¶34

Learned counsel for appellant – accused No. 8 would contend that no overt act is alleged against the

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:27107 CRL.A No. 338 of 2023

¶36

appellant – accused No. 8 in column No. 7 of the charge sheet. What is alleged against this appellant – accused No. 8 is that he gave shelter to the other accused in the farm house of his relative and facilitated them to commit the murder of the deceased and he did not intimate the commission of offence to anybody. He further submits that the dead body of the deceased has not been traced and case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Accused No. 3 who is similarly placed to that of this appellant – accused No. 8 has been granted bail by this Court in Crl.A. No. 1055/2023. He further submits that nothing has been recovered at the instance of this appellant – accused No. 8. As charge sheet has been filed, appellant – accused No. 8 is not required for custodial interrogation. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to appellant – accused No. 8.

¶37

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No. 1 – State would contend that this appellant – accused No. 8 gave shelter to the other

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:27107 CRL.A No. 338 of 2023

¶39

accused in the farm house of his relative and facilitated them in commission of the offence. The appellant – accused No. 8 did not intimate the commission of the crime either to the Police or to any other person. Charge sheet material show prima facie case against appellant – accused No. 8 for the offence alleged against him. There is

¶40

recovery of Creta car at the instance of appellant – accused No. 8. The offence alleged against this appellant – accused No. 8 is heinous offence punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. Considering all these aspects learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail petition and there are no grounds for setting aside the impugned order and granting bail to the appellant – accused No. 8. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶41

Even though the deceased was missing, neither his father nor any of his relatives filed any missing complaint. Case came to be registered on receipt of anonymous letter. There is no confirmation of death of deceased Sharath Kumar since his dead body is not

¶42

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:27107 CRL.A No. 338 of 2023

¶43

traced. The only accusation against this appellant – accused No. 8 is that he gave shelter to the other accused in the farm house of his relative wherein the alleged offence has taken place. There is no overt act alleged against this appellant – accused No. 8 of assaulting or killing the deceased. Case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, guilt of the accused has to be proved by establishing each of the circumstances. As charge sheet is filed, the appellant – accused No. 8 is not required for custodial interrogation. Without considering all these aspects the Special Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference of this Court.

¶44

In the result, the following;

¶45

O R D E R

¶46

Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.02.2023 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 378/2023 by LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru is set aside. The bail petition of the appellant – accused No. 8 in Crl.Misc. No. 378/2023 stands allowed.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:27107 CRL.A No. 338 of 2023

¶49

The appellant – accused No. 8 is ordered to be released on

¶50

bail in crime No. 138/2022 of Cubbon Park Police Station subject to the following conditions:

¶51

I. Appellant – accused No. 8 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶52

II. Appellant – accused No. 8 shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶53

III. Appellant – accused No. 8 shall not indulge in any similar offence.

¶54

IV. Appellant – accused No. 8 shall attend the Court on all hearing dates, unless exempted, and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LRS

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri. Sanketh. K. v. State by Cubbonpark Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sanketh. K. v. State by Cubbonpark Police

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 P S Nagendra Guptha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadisha @ Jagadisha Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Purushotham

Ajaykumar G v Vs Channakrishna Reddy

Likith @ Nikhil Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagesha P Vs State by Narasimharaja Police Station