Dismissed

Raja. a @ John v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2023CRL.A/580/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed two criminal appeals filed by accused persons challenging bail rejection orders. The Court held that prima facie cases existed involving serious offences including murder and the appellants faced potential risk of tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The charges were not varied, bail was not granted, and the appeals were dismissed.

Raja. a @ John Vs State of Karnataka by — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:29170 CRL.A No. 580 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 906 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2023

¶8

C/W

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 906 OF 2023

¶10

IN CRL. APPEAL NO.580/2023:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

RAJA A @ JOHN, S/O ARMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT NO.26/6, EWS QUARTERS, NGV AMBEDKAR NAGAR, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 047. (ACCUSED NO.8 IN JC).

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVAPPA T, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

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

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY, SHO, HENNUR PS, BANGALORE - 560 033, REPTD. BY GOVT. PLEADER, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

SMT SUJATHA, S/O SHREEDHAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.956/B, CHIKKANANJUNDAPPA LAYOUT, RAMASWAMYPALYA, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 033.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR SRI RANGASWAMY R HCGP FOR R1, R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:29170 CRL.A No. 580 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 906 of 2023

¶22

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.217/2021 AND SPL.C.NO.217/2022 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 109, 302, 120-B, 201 R/W SEC. 34, 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 25 OF ARMS ACT 1959 R/W SEC.3(2)(5) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT/HENNUR POLICE BENGALURU NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-71) BENGALURU.

¶24

IN CRL. APPEAL NO.906/2023:

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

J. NELSONRAJ @ ARVIND, S/O JHONSON LUISE, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.38, 1^st MAIN ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR, SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶27

…APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SRI MOHAMMED PASHA C, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HENNUR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT CAMPUS, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶31

SUJATHA, W/O SHREEDHAR,AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.956/B, CHIKKANJUNDAPPA LAYOUT, RAMASWAMY PALYA, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 033.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R1, R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶34

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:29170 CRL.A No. 580 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 906 of 2023

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.04.2022 PASSED BY HON'BLE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-71), AT BENGALURU IN C.MISC.NO.2884/2022 AND ALLOW THIS BAIL APPLICATION AND ENLARGE APPELLANT ON BAIL WHO ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.6 IN SPL.C.C.NO.217/2022 ARISING OUT OF VIDE CRIME NO.217/2021, FOR AN OFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 109, 302, 120(B), 201 R/W 34, 149 OF IPC, SEC. 25 OF ARMS ACT, SEC. 3(2)(5) SC/ST POA ACT, 1989 OF HENNUR POLICE, ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-71) AT BANGALORE.

¶36

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

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Criminal Appeal No.580/2023 is filed by accused No.8 praying to set aside the order dated 11.01.2023 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous 12475/2022 by LXX Additional City

¶39

Civil and Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Bengaluru.

¶40

Criminal Appeal No.906/2023 is filed by accused No.6

¶41

praying to set aside the order dated 12.04.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2884/2022 by LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.

¶42

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:29170 CRL.A No. 580 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 906 of 2023

¶43

The appellant/accused Nos.6 and 8 sought bail in respect of Crime No.217/2021 of Hennur Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 109, 302, 120B, 201, 148 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as 'Act, 1989' for short). The bail petitions filed by the appellants came to be rejected by the impugned orders. So the appellants have challenged the said orders and prayed for grant of bail.

¶44

Heard learned Advocate appearing for appellant/accused No.8 in Criminal Appeal 580/2023 and learned counsel for appellant/accused No.6 in Criminal Appeal 906/2023 and Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State. On service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶45

The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2/complainant has filed a complaint stating that her

¶46

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:29170 CRL.A No. 580 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 906 of 2023

¶47

husband deceased Sridhar left the house at 11.15 am on 13.11.2021 saying that he is going to meet his friend near Hebbal in a Innova Car and at around 1.00 pm when the complainant was at home some unknown person had telephoned to complainant and had informed that some unknown persons had murdered her husband near the ring road. Therefore, the complainant immediately went and saw the dead body of her husband and came to know that some 5-6 persons had chased and assaulted her husband Sridhar in front of the coffee day. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.217/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 149, 148, 302 IPC. During investigation, the appellants i.e. accused Nos.6 and 8 have been arrested and they are in judicial custody. The Police after investigation filed a charge sheet against accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 148, 302, read with 149 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(V) of Act, 1989. The sum and substance of the prosecution case in the charge sheet is that the deceased Sridhar and accused No.3 had

¶48

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:29170 CRL.A No. 580 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 906 of 2023

¶49

business, regularly going to the real estate business and there was a robbery case registered against deceased Sridhar in Rammurthy Nagar Police Station in Crime No.418/2018 and the deceased had a grudge against accused No.3. Since he informed about the incident to Police and deceased had been arrested and the deceased

¶50

Sridhar's friend Rakshit had murdered the cousin of accused No.1. Accused No.1 is follower of accused No.3 and the deceased was telling in the area that accused Nos.1 to 3 also will be murdered as like his cousin and he is waiting for the right time. Therefore, accused Nos.1 to 3 taking help of accused Nos.4 to 9 murdered the deceased Sridhar.

¶51

The appellant/accused No.8 in Criminal Appeal 580/2023 filed Criminal Miscellaneous 12475/2022 and appellant/accused No.6 in Criminal Appeal 906/23 filed Criminal Miscellaneous 2884/2022 along with accused No.7 seeking bail. Both the petitions filed by accused

¶52

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:29170 CRL.A No. 580 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 906 of 2023

¶53

Nos.6 and 8 came to be rejected by the impugned orders

¶54

which are challenged in these appeals.

¶55

Learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal 580/2023 would contend that as per the averments of the complaint, 5 to 6 unknown persons committed murder of deceased Sridhar. As per the accusation column in the charge sheet, the appellant/accused No.8 was standing there and there is no allegation of any assault by him to the deceased. The post mortem report reveals that the death of the deceased is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained by him. There is no seizure of any object at the instance of accused No.8. The eye witnesses have stated that the appellant/accused No.8 was standing near the incident. He further submitted that appellant/accused No.8 did not agree to become accomplice, therefore, he has been arrayed as an accused. With these, he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶56

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:29170 CRL.A No. 580 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 906 of 2023

¶57

The learned counsel for appellant/accused No.6 in Criminal Appeal 906/2023 would contend that the name of assailants has not been mentioned in the complaint and only on suspicion 6 persons have been arrested on 15.11.2020. Even though the eye witness PW2 - Babu was present with the deceased Sridhar on the date of incident at the spot, but his statement came to be recorded on 18.11.2020 and delay is not explained. There is no mention of recording of statements of eye witnesses or presence of eye witness in the remand applications. Therefore the statement of eye witnesses is created only based on the voluntary statement of co-accused. The photos in the CCTV footage does not reveal the presence of accused No.6 as the persons who travelled on motor cycle they were wearing helmet. Merely because this appellant is involved in another criminal case for offence under Section 302, his bail petition came to be rejected. Accused No.3 has been granted bail by the Sessions Court and therefore, on ground of parity, accused No.6 is entitled for grant of bail.

¶58

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:29170 CRL.A No. 580 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 906 of 2023

¶59

Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that

¶60

these appellants along with other accused were members of unlawful assembly. There are specific overt act against the appellants. The appellant/accused No.6 was holding long chopper and he assaulted the deceased and the long chopper has been seized at his instance under mahazar and also the blood stained jerkin has been seized at his instance. CWs 2 to 5 are eye witnesses to the incident.

¶61

There is a conspiracy by the accused persons to kill the deceased which includes the appellants - A6 and 8 herein. Appellant No.6 is not entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity as accused No.3 who has been granted bail was not present on the spot at the time of incident. Insofar as the appellant/accused No.8 chased the deceased when he tried to escape and stopped him and other accused assaulted the deceased and caused his death. Appellant/accused No.8 has also joined the other accused in the conspiracy to kill the deceased. The

¶62

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:29170 CRL.A No. 580 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 906 of 2023

¶63

offence alleged against the appellant and other accused are punishable either death or imprisonment for life. Considering all these aspects, the Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail petitions. With these, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶64

After having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the impugned orders and charge sheet material.

¶65

CWs 2 to 5 are eyewitnesses to the incident who

¶66

have stated that after assault the accused persons who were wearing helmets, have removed the helmets and have identified the appellants/accused 6 and 8 in the Police Station. They have also stated that the appellant/accused No.6 and other accused assaulted the deceased on his neck and other parts with long chopper. There is recovery of blood stained chopper and jerkin at the instance of appellant/accused No.6. The appellant/accused No.8 joined the team of conspiracy of

¶67

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:29170 CRL.A No. 580 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 906 of 2023

¶68

the co-accused and agreed to kill the deceased Sridhar. Appellant No.8 was also with the other accused at the time of incident and he chased the deceased when he tried to run away and stopped him. The other accused assaulted deceased Sridhar and committed his murder. Even though, no specific overt act is alleged against accused No.8 but he is part of conspiracy, member of unlawful assembly, chased the deceased when he tried to run away and stopped him so as to enable the other accused to assault the deceased. Merely because there is delay in recording the statement of eye witnesses, is not a ground

¶69

for grant of bail as the offence alleged against the appellants is serious. Accused No.3 who has been granted bail was not present at the time of incident on the spot and his role is different than the role of the appellants/accused Nos.6 and 8 herein. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The doctor who conducted the post mortem report has opined that the death of the deceased is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries.

¶70

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:29170 CRL.A No. 580 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 906 of 2023

¶71

On perusal of the entire charge sheet material, there is prima facie case against the appellants/accused Nos.6 and 8 and one of the offence alleged against them is punishable either death or imprisonment for life. So if the appellants/accused 6 and 8 are granted bail, there are chances of they threatening the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. Considering all these aspects, learned Special and Sessions Judge has passed the impugned orders which does not call for any interference by this Court. The appellants have not made out any ground for setting-aside the impugned orders and grant of bail.

¶72

Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Raja. a @ John v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja. a @ John v. State of Karnataka 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

Adeebulla Sharief Vs State by Kadugondanahalli Police

Shashank Vs State of Karnataka

Umesha. N Vs State of Karnataka

Dyamappa G @ Akash Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nandheesh M K Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumantha Vs the State of Karnataka