Allowed

Sri. Gajendra v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2023CRL.A/379/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Special Judge's order rejecting bail. The court granted bail to the appellant accused No.1 under Section 439 Cr.P.C., citing parity with co-accused and non-violent nature of prior offenses, subject to four conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; released on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety, subject to conditions regarding tampering, attendance, and no renewal of offense.

Sri. Gajendra Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:29846 CRL.A No. 379 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. GAJENDRA S/O MANI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS DRIVER, R/O SIDDALIPURA VILLAGE LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 131.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SYED UMMER, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. C. SARASWATHY PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LAKKAVALLI POLICE TARIKERE TALUK

¶13

CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT

¶14

REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU.

¶15

SRI. UMESHA NAIKA S/O MANJA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶16

SRI. MANJA NAIKA S/O BALYA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:29846 CRL.A No. 379 of 2023

¶18

SMT. SHRUTHI W/O NAGARAJA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶19

R2 TO R4 ARE RESIDING AT SIDDLIPURA VILLAGE LAKKAVALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 131.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R1; R2 TO R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2023 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.147/2022 BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Accused No.1 has filed this appeal seeking to set aside the order dated 12.01.2023 passed in Spl. Case No. 147/2022 by the I Addl. Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru, whereunder the bail application filed by this appellant/accused No.1 in respect of Crime No.75/2022 of Lakkavalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 504, 323,

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:29846 CRL.A No. 379 of 2023

¶27

324, 506, 354, 341, 427, 307 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1989) came to be rejected.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/ State. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 inspite of service of notice remained absent and unrepresented.

¶29

The case of the prosecution is that one Umesh Nayaka has filed a complaint stating that on 29.07.2022 in between 8.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m., when he was in his house, the accused persons by forming unlawful assembly, came near his house and called him outside the house and when the complainant, his father, mother and sister-in-law came out of the house, the accused persons insulted them by abusing them in filthy language by taking the name of their caste. The accused persons assaulted them with

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:29846 CRL.A No. 379 of 2023

¶31

hands. When they were going in car to lodge the complaint against accused persons, the accused persons chased them and near Maridibba, the accused persons intercepted their car, broke the front glass of their car and swung long and chopper. The accused persons in order to commit the murder of father of the complainant swung the long and chopper and when he escaped the blow, it fell on his hand and sister-in-law of the complainant also sustained bleeding injuries. The other two persons also sustained injuries in this incident. The said complaint came to be registered in crime No. 75/2022 of Lakkavalli Police Station for the offences under Section 143, 144, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 506, 354, 341, 427, 307 read with 149 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Act, 1989.

¶32

The Police after completing investigation filed charge sheet against appellant/accused No.1 and other

¶33

accused for the above said offences. The appellant/accused No.1, who has been arrested on 27.09.2022 and who is in judicial custody, has filed bail

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:29846 CRL.A No. 379 of 2023

¶35

application in Spl. case No. 147/2022 and same came to be rejected by the impugned order.

¶36

The Learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 contend that appellant/accused No. 1 is in judicial custody since 27.09.2022 and as the charge sheet is filed, he is not required for custodial interrogation. The injured who are CW-13 to 16 have sustained moderate and simple injuries. The said injured have been discharged from the hospital and there is no danger to their lives. The other accused namely, accused Nos. 3 to 6 have been granted bail by this Court in Crl. A No. 1995/2022 and therefore, this appellant/accused No.1 who is similarly placed to that of those accused, is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The mother of the appellant/accused No.1 is a old lady and he is the only earning member in the family. Without considering these aspects, the learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. With this, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶37

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:29846 CRL.A No. 379 of 2023

¶38

Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that

¶39

the appellant/accused No.1 and other accused formed unlawful assembly, went to the house of the complainant and assaulted complainant and his family members with hands and when they were moving in car in order to lodge the complaint, at that time, these accused persons chased them, damaged the car, assaulted CW-13 to CW-16 with deadly weapons and caused moderate and simple injuries. The charge sheet show prima facie case against the appellant/accused No.1 and other accused for the offences alleged against them. This appellant/accused No.1 is a habitual offender involved in two other cases. In the incident four persons sustained injuries and they are CW13 to CW-16. CW-17 to CW-20 are the eye witnesses to the incident. Considering all these aspects, the Special Court has rightly rejected the bail application of this appellant/accused No.1. With this, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:29846 CRL.A No. 379 of 2023

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶43

appellant and learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the impugned order and charge sheet papers.

¶44

As per charge sheet, the accusation against

¶45

this appellant/accused No.1 is that he assaulted CW-13 with machete in order to kill CW-13 and he escaped and the hit touched the hands of CW-13 and caused moderate injuries. The accusation against the accused No.3 is that he assaulted CW-14 to CW-16 with machet and caused simple and moderate injuries. Accused No.3 who is similarly placed to that of this appellant/accused No.1, has been granted bail by this Court in Crl. A. No. 1995/2022 and therefore, this appellant/accused No. 1 is also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The appellant/accused No. 1 is involved in two criminal cases for the offences which are not serious in nature. The apprehension of the prosecution that if the appellant/accused No.1 is granted bail, there is a threat to the complainant, injured and eye witnesses can be met

¶46

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:29846 CRL.A No. 379 of 2023

¶47

with by imposing stringent conditions. Without considering all these aspects, the Learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order, which requires interference by this Court.

¶48

9. In the result, the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

The appeal is allowed.

¶51

The impugned order dated 12.01.2023 passed in Special Case No. 147/2022 by the I Addl. Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru, is set aside insofar as this appellant/accused No.1 is concerned. Consequently, the bail application of this appellant/accused No.1 filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C is allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions;

¶52

(i) The appellant/accused No.1 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 Trial Court.

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC:29846 CRL.A No. 379 of 2023

¶54

¶55

(ii) The appellant/accused No. 1 shall not tamper with the evidence collected by the Investigating officer and threaten the witnesses.

¶56

(iii) The appellant/accused No. 1 shall regularly appear before the trial court unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶57

(iv) The appellant/accused No.1 shall not commit any similar offence.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

PMP, RKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT:SNN

Sri. Gajendra v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gajendra 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dyamappa G @ Akash Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nandheesh M K Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumantha Vs the State of Karnataka

Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

K Dhanush Vs the State of Karnataka

Elumalai Vs the State of Karnataka