Allowed

Mr Chethan H v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2024CRL.A/114/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge in the High Court of Karnataka allowed the criminal appeal against the rejection of bail. The accused was acquitted in terms of the bail application despite the relevance to the SC/ST POA Act, primarily due to the doubts regarding his specific involvement established in the evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.12.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.1827/2023 is set aside. Bail is granted to the appellant-accused subject to conditions including execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/ and not co

Mr Chethan H Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:5450 CRL.A No. 114 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.114 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR CHETHAN H S/O HUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O CHANNANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE HULLEKERE POST, GANDASI HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT- 573103 (NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY DISTRICT PRISON, TUMKURU)

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI MOHAMMED MUBARAK, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TURUVEKERE POICE STATION TUMKURU DISTRICT -572 227

¶15

RESPONDENT NOT REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE.

¶16

KIRAN KUMAR S/O MOHAN KUMAR HORAPETE, TURUVEKERE TOWN- 572227 TUMKURU.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI MOHAN MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5450 CRL.A No. 114 of 2024

¶20

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1827/2023 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU AND CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE HIM ON BAIL IN CR.NO.142/2023 OF TURUVEKERE POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT WHICH IS PENDING IN SPL.C.NO.668/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 302, 120B, 427, 435, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by accused No.4 praying to set

¶24

aside the order dated 20.12.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1827/2023 by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, whereunder the bail petition of this appellant – accused No.4 sought in respect of Crime No.142/2023 of Turuvekere police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 302, 120B, 427, 435, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule

¶25

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (pending in Spl.C.No.668/2023) came to be rejected.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5450 CRL.A No. 114 of 2024

¶27

Heard the arguments of learned Senior counsel for appellant/accused No.4 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶28

It is the case of the prosecution that respondent No.2 has filed complaint on 04.06.2023 stating that on 29.03.2023 at about 8.45 p.m., his brother Ravi and all accused persons went to Nesara Dhaba, by that time there was exchange of words between Ravi and accused persons with respect of money transaction, by that time accused by name Prasadi assaulted with long chopper to the brother of the complainant and caused grievous injuries on his head. With respect to the said incident a case was registered before Turuvekere police station.

¶29

In order to compromise that criminal case, the friend of the complainant by name Darshan insisted by Prasadi and his friends and in view of that offer from Prasadi and his friends, Darshan informed the complainant and his brother to compromise the matter.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:5450 CRL.A No. 114 of 2024

¶32

On 03.06.2023 for compromise talk at about

¶33

10.00 p.m., the friends of complainant by name Sanju, Dilip, Mohan, Manjunatha along with Darshan had been to Kammasandra at 11.00 p.m., near Karekallu, Darshan called upon Prasadi to come to the spot for negotiation, but Prasadi in turn informed and called upon Darshan and others near his house. In view of the said information, complainant and his friends were on the way to the house of Prasadi, his two friends stopped him. Immediately, the friends of Prasadi in two cars came to the spot with deadly weapons and assaulted Dilip and caused bleeding injuries.

¶34

In spite of repeated request from the complainant and his friends, Prasadi and his gang caused bleeding injuries to Dilip and burnt three bikes belonged to Dilip, Sanju and Manju. Immediately, complainant and his friends shifted Dilip to A.C. Giri Hospital. In that regard respondent No.2 has filed complaint.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:5450 CRL.A No. 114 of 2024

¶37

Thereafter the said Dilip died on 08.06.2023

¶38

and on the complaint of respondent No.2 offence under Section 302 of IPC came to be added.

¶39

Police after completion of investigation, filed the

¶40

charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner who is in Judicial Custody filed the bail petition and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

¶41

The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the medical register, in the history, it is mentioned that assault by accused No.1 and 2. The first information came to be filed by respondent No.2 on the next day i.e., 04.06.2023 and there is a delay in filing the complaint.

¶42

In the complaint there is no mention of name of this appellant – accused No.4, even there is no mention of name of this appellant – accused No.4 in the second

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5450 CRL.A No. 114 of 2024

¶44

complaint dated 08.06.2023 filed after the death of deceased Dilip.

¶45

In the remand application dated 10.06.2023

¶46

filed with regard to this appellant - accused No.4, there is no mention of recording of the statement of eyewitnesses even though the statement of eyewitnesses alleged to have recorded on 04.06.2023 i.e., CWs.3 and 4. He contends that in Section 164 statement of C.Ws.5, 6, 7 and 8, the names of assailants are not mentioned. C.Ws.4 to 10 have not stated the name of this appellant – accused No.4 in their statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

¶47

The Doctor who has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased has opined that the death is due to head injuries sustained and that allegation of assault with a club on the head of the deceased is by accused No.2. Considering all these aspects, the participation of this appellant – accused No.4 in the commission of alleged offences is doubtful. The

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:5450 CRL.A No. 114 of 2024

¶50

appellant – accused No.4 is also not involved in the previous case which took place on 29.3.2022 at Dhaba and it is between accused No.1 to 3.

¶51

Even the death of the deceased is after five days of the incident and the doctors who have treated deceased have not been cited as charge sheet witnesses. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and grant of bail to the appellant – accused No.4.

¶52

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that this appellant was present with other accused at the time of conspiracy and he has assaulted with long chopper to the deceased and caused injury. The appellant is a rowdy sheeter, the name of this appellant – accused No.4 has been stated by C.W.3 in his 164 statement. There is recovery of long chopper and blood stained clothes at the instance of this appellant – accused No.4. On perusal of the charge sheet papers, there is prima facie case against appellant – accused No.4

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:5450 CRL.A No. 114 of 2024

¶54

for the offences alleged against him. With these grounds,

¶55

he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶56

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that the deceased and others were called upon for mediation with regard to earlier incident taken place on 29.03.2023 and at that time accused persons assaulted Dilip and caused severe injuries who succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on 08.06.2023. The eyewitnesses have given their statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. If the appellant - accused No.4 is granted bail, there is a threat to eyewitnesses. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶57

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant – accused No.4, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2, this court has gone through the impugned order and charge sheet records.

¶58

After the incident the injured Dilip has been admitted to Adichunchanagiri Hospital and Research

¶59

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:5450 CRL.A No. 114 of 2024

¶60

Centre on 04.06.2023 and in the register, history is mentioned as assault on 03.06.2023 at about 11.30 p.m., to 12.00 a.m., and he was assaulted by Mr. Prasad and Mr. Manjunatha with iron long. Respondent No.2 who has filed complaint is another eyewitness. In his complaint filed on 04.06.2023 he has not mentioned the name of this appellant – accused No.4. There is only mention of names of accused No.1 to 3. The said respondent No.2 has filed another complaint after death of injured - Dilip on 08.06.2023. In the said complaint also there is no mention of name of this appellant – accused No.4. The statement of C.Ws.3 and 4 have been stated to be recorded on 04.06.2023. But there is no mention of the same by respondent No.2 in his complaint dated 08.06.2023.

¶61

In the statements of C.Ws.4 to 8 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is no mention of the names of the assailants. There is no motive alleged against this appellant - accused No.4.

¶62

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:5450 CRL.A No. 114 of 2024

¶63

Considering all these aspects whether there is involvement of this appellant – accused No.4 in assaulting the deceased - Dilip is a matter of trial. As the charge sheet is filed against this appellant – accused No.4 is not required for custodial interrogation. Without considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference of this Court.

¶64

In the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant-accused No.4 has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and granting bail subject to terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.12.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1827/2023 by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, is set aside. Consequently, the appellant-accused No.4 is granted bail and he is ordered to be released on bail in

¶67

11 -

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:5450 CRL.A No. 114 of 2024

¶69

Crime No.142/2023 of Turuvekre police station (pending in Spl.C.No.668/2023), subject to following conditions:

¶70

(1) Appellant - accused No.4 shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶71

(2) Appellant - accused No.4 shall not threaten the complainant or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶72

(3) Appellant - accused No.4 shall appear before the trial court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate for speedy disposal of the case.

¶73

(4) The appellant – accused No.4 shall not involve in commission of any similar offence during the pendency of case.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

Mr Chethan H v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Chethan H 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Veeran S/O Keshava

Nanjundeshwara Vs State by Sorba Police

Madhu D Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Pramodh Kumar B G Vs the State of Karnataka

Hameedkhan S/O Chammansab Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Javeed Vs the State of Karnataka