Dismissed

Shankareppa Jatteppa Gudadinni v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024CRL.A/100231/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal regarding successive bail petition for charges under IPC and SC/ST Act involving double murder. Court held no reason to set aside impugned order as appeal on merits lacks grounds previously rejected. Dismissed appeal.

What did the court decide?

None. Criminal appeal No.100231 of 2024 dismissed. Petitioner directed to file fresh petition on delay ground in Sessions Court if applicable.

Shankareppa Jatteppa Gudadinni Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13530 CRL.A No. 100231 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100231 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHANKAREPPA JATTEPPA GUDADINNI AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O TORAVI, TQ AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA 586101

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. V M SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PSI MUDHOL POLICE STATION, BAGALKOT, RPERESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD 580001.

¶15

YALLAPPA BHARAMAPPA TALAGERI AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, R/O. SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ. MUCHOL, BAGALKOT 587301 …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC/ST ACT SEEKING TO SET-ASIDE THE

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13530 CRL.A No. 100231 of 2024

¶19

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.01.2024 PASSED BY THE IIADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.15 ON BAIL IN SPECIAL CASE NO. 03/2020 (CRIME NO. 160/2019 MUDHOL PS) REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 302, 120B, READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2), (V-a) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989) IN THE INTERST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This is a successive bail petition preferred by the petitioner praying to enlarge him on bail in Spl. Case No.3/2020 pending on the file of the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot.

¶24

Petitioner along with two others are facing trial

¶25

for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 302, 120B r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, on an accusation of committing double murder.

¶26

[

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13530 CRL.A No. 100231 of 2024

¶28

This Court after considering the entire facts and

¶29

circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence committed, dismissed criminal petition No.100934/2020 and connected criminal petition No.100845/2020 preferred by the petitioner and the coaccused, on 04.11.2020. Once again, the petitioner along with other accused persons approached this Court in Criminal appeal No.100290/2023 seeking bail on the ground that they are under incarceration since 17.10.2019. This Court directed the learned Sessions Judge to send a report explaining the reasons for the delay in conducting the trial. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge sent a report dated 21.11.2023 stating that the charges are already framed and some of the witnesses are also examined. Hence, considering that the trial is in progress, the said appeal was dismissed by this Court on 24.11.2023.

¶30

The learned counsel for appellant would submit that there are as many as 127 witnesses cited in the

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13530 CRL.A No. 100231 of 2024

¶32

charge sheet. Till today only 21 witnesses are examined and some of the witnesses are not appearing before the Court to tender evidence and therefore, against them warrants have been issued. He submitted that there is no chance of trial being concluded in the near future and therefore, sought to enlarge the appellant on bail.

¶33

Learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the prayer contending that the trial is in progress and therefore, if the appellant is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and also flee from justice.

¶34

The appellant herein preferred a bail petition

¶35

before the Sessions Court which has been rejected on 18.01.2024. In this appeal the appellant is seeking to set aside the said order and to enlarge him on bail. A perusal of the impugned order does not reveal that the appellant has sought bail before the Sessions Court on the ground of delay in trial. On the other hand, he has preferred the said petition on merits. The learned Sessions Judge has

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13530 CRL.A No. 100231 of 2024

¶37

considered the merits of the case and rejected the said petition, observing that it is not a fit case to enlarge him on bail, as the accused have committed murder of two persons on a broad day light and in the event of grant of bail, there are chances of tampering the prosecution witnesses and hampering the case of prosecution.

¶38

This court on earlier occasions has rejected the

¶39

prayer for bail, on merits, considering the nature and gravity of the offence. Once again considering the prayer on merits does not arise. Hence, there are no reasons to set aside the impugned order and to enlarge the appellant on bail. Ground of delay in conducting trial was not raised before the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Sessions Judge to give any finding in its order for the delay if any in trial.

¶40

It is open for the appellant to file a fresh

¶41

petition before the Sessions Court for bail on the ground of delay in conducting trial. If any such application is filed,

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13530 CRL.A No. 100231 of 2024

¶43

the learned Sessions Judge shall dispose of the same in

¶44

accordance with law.

¶45

With the above observation, the appeal is

¶46

Dismissed.

¶47

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶48

HB/CT-SJ List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1

Shankareppa Jatteppa Gudadinni v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankareppa Jatteppa Gudadinni 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Manjunath. K. v. Vs State by Marthalli Police

Sri. Rahul Chakrapani Vs State by Karnataka

V N Karthik Vs State by Bagalu Police

Shivaji Rao @ Shivaji Vs State of Karnataka

Shesharaju Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Harish Vs the State of Karnataka