Allowed

Rohith v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2023CRL.A/827/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2023, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the appellant's appeal against the rejection of his bail application. The court set aside the Special Judge's order and granted bail to the appellant accused, imposing strings such as a personal bond, weekly police station attendance, and prohibitions on interfering with witnesses. This decision was made despite the appellant

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside. The appellant was admitted to bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties and complying with conditions of regular court appeara

Rohith Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:26751 CRL.A No. 827 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 827 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ROHITH S/O YOGESH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT No.6, RAJEEV GANDHI CIRCLE LAGGERE MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 34.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI PRATHEEP K C, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY RAJGOPALNAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-01.

¶15

SMT. SITAMMA W/O NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT No.193/1, 5^TH CROSS, KASTURI LAYOUT, RAJGOPALNAGAR BENGALURU – 79.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI RENUKA RADHYA R D, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:26751 CRL.A No. 827 of 2023

¶19

¶20

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER IN SPECIAL CASE No.646/2021 DATED 25.03.2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.No.6/2021 (SPL.CASE No.646/2021) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143,147,148,307,302,504,120B,201 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND SECTION 25(1)(B)(b) R/W 4 OF IPC BY RAJAGOPALA NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard Sri.Pratheep K.C, learned counsel for the appellant – accused No.7 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State.

¶24

Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has not appeared, either in person or through a counsel.

¶25

This appeal is filed questioning the correctness of the order dated 25.03.2023 passed by the learned LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, (CCH-71), Bengaluru in a Special Case

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:26751 CRL.A No. 827 of 2023

¶28

No.646/2021, rejecting the bail application filed by accused No.7.

¶29

The appellant is accused No.7. He and the other accuses are facing trial in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 504, 120-B read with 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 25(1)(B)(b) read with 4 of Indian Arms Act. The F.I.R was registered on 09.01.2021, at the instance of respondent No.2, who is the sister of the deceased namely Sri.Srinivas. The F.I.R discloses enmity between the deceased and one Sri.Bharath, who is not alive.

¶30

The actual incident took place on 09.01.2021, when the deceased and respondent No.2 were present in the site where a house was being constructed. It appears that the deceased was getting the house constructed for his sister ie, respondent No.2. When the deceased was sitting in the site, at about 1.00 pm., seven to eight persons came stating that the deceased was responsible for the death of

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:26751 CRL.A No. 827 of 2023

¶32

Sri.Bharath and assaulted him indiscriminately with the weapons such as long, dragon and machete etc., and left the place. The deceased succumbed to the injuries.

¶33

As argued by learned counsel Sri.Pratheep K.C, respondent No.2 was an eye witness to the incident. In her report to the police, she stated that seven to eight persons came to the place where construction work was going on. At that stage, the deceased was able to identify their names as Sri.Manoji, Sri.Appi, Sri.Shashi, Sri.ManjuAndrahalli, Sri.Abhi-Hitachi. That means, the deceased himself was able to identify those persons. According to respondent No.2, they were the persons who inflicted injuries to her brother.

¶34

One Sri. Sudeep, son of respondent No.2 was an eye

¶35

witness. His statement was recorded on 13.01.2021. In his statement, he has stated that twelve to fifteen persons came to that place and they inflicted the injuries to his uncle. His statement also discloses the names of

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:26751 CRL.A No. 827 of 2023

¶37

Sri.Manoji, Sri.Appi, Sri.Manja, Sri.Andrahalli Abhi, Hitachi among twelve to fifteen persons who came there.

¶38

Then the Investigating Officer appears to have collected the CCTV footages and in this regard, he recorded the statement of one Sri.Raghu - CW25. According to the visuals found in the CCTV footages, eight persons were found going towards the place of incident by riding three motor bikes. Seeing the footages, the Investigating Officer was able to recognize one person as Sri.Manoj ie., accused No.2. Now, sofar as the appellant – accused No.7 is concerned, it appears that he was implicated on the basis of the confession statements given by the co-accused.

¶39

9. Arguments of learned High Court Government

¶40

Pleader is that CWs.1, 12 to 14, 19 to 24 and the injured - CW13 have identified this appellant – accused No.7 as one of the person who assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons and charge sheet materials show prima facie

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:26751 CRL.A No. 827 of 2023

¶42

case against this appellant – accused No.7 for the offences alleged against him.

¶43

If the materials are assessed, it appears that one Sri.Shashi, whose name the deceased himself took, just before the incident took place, was left out from the charge sheet. When respondent No.2 was able to see seven to eight persons coming to that place with weapons for killing her brother, the statement her son Sri.Sudeep shows that twelve to fifteen persons came to that place. The name of the appellant – accused No.7 is not forthcoming either in the F.I.R or in the statement of Sri.Sudeep – CW12. Even though the said Sri.Sudeep - CW12 was available, his statement came to be recorded after four days ie., on 13.01.2021.

¶44

Accused Nos.8, 9, 12 and 17 who were similarly placed to that of this appellant – accused No.7 have been granted bail by this Court in Crl.A.Nos.2179/2022, 68/2023, 1864/2022 and 2280/2022. It is alleged that this appellant is a rowdy sheeter, so also, the said accused

¶45

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:26751 CRL.A No. 827 of 2023

¶46

Nos.8, 9, 12 and 17. The involvement of this appellant – accused No.7 in commission of the alleged offences is to be ascertained only at the trial, as the charge sheet is filed. The appellant - accused No.7 is not required for custodial interrogation.

¶47

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order requires to be set-aside and the appellant – accused No.7 is entitled for grant of bail, by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following;

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The appeal is allowed . The order passed by the

¶50

LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, (CCH-71), Bengaluru dated 25.03.2023 in Special Case No.646/2021, on the application of the appellant is set-aside. The said application is allowed. The appellant is admitted to bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶51

(i) The appellant – accused No.7 shall execute

¶52

a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:26751 CRL.A No. 827 of 2023

¶55

(Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶56

(ii) The appellant – accused No.7 shall not tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses.

¶57

(iii) The appellant – accused No.7 shall regularly appear before the Trial Court, till conclusion of the trial.

¶58

(iv) The appellant – accused No.7 shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police station once in a week, preferably on Sunday between 9.00 am and 12.00 noon, till conclusion of the trial.

¶59

(v) The appellant – accused No.7 shall not get involved in any other criminal case in future. If the appellant – accused No.7 gets involved in any criminal case in future, the Trial Court

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:26751 CRL.A No. 827 of 2023

¶62

may cancel the bail soon after the same is brought to its notice.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Rohith v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohith 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri R Nagaraja Reddy Vs Sri K v Kodanda

Jamunarani Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chinnappa Vs Sri Chikkamuniyappa

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri M Byregowda

Madhura Prabhu, Vs Chethan Raj

Smt Nitya Govindaraj Vs Sri Vivekanandan