Dismissed

Chandan K @ Chandan Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024CRL.A/1213/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant, convicted of murder and SC/ST atrocities, sought bail arguing that the trial had not commenced within the two-month period mandated by Section 14 of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that mere detention for over a year and a failure to complete the trial is not a ground for bail in death/life sentence offences, while directing the Special Court to exp

What the court decided

AI extract

Chandan K @ Chandan Gowda Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38333 CRL.A No. 1213 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1213 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

CHANDAN. K @ CHANDAN GOWDA, S/O. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT BYREGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562123.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, STATE BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI P.S. REPTD BY HIGH COURT GOVT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶12

Digitally signed by JAGADISH T R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

VENKATESHAPPA S/O. GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT: VINAYAKANAGARA, GANESHANAGUDI KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU - 562123.

¶14

(BY SRI.M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;

¶15

SMT. NIRMALA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYS TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE RURAL IN CRL. MISC. NO.1049/2023 DATED 19.06.203 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.156/2023 (NOW IN SPL.C.NO.617/2023) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 307, 120 B R/W 34 OF IPC ALONG WITH SECTION 3(2)(V) SC AND ST PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE RURAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:38333 CRL.A No. 1213 of 2024

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the accused No.1 praying to set aside the order dated 19.06.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1049/2023 by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶24

The bail petition of this appellant/ accused No.1 sought in respect of Crime No.156/2023 of Madanayakanahally Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989, came to be rejected.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ accused No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38333 CRL.A No. 1213 of 2024

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that, on

¶28

15.03.2023 at about 9.00 p.m., when deceased

¶29

Chandrashekar was chatting with his friends by name Shashank, Arunkumar, and Lokesh near the layout in Byragondanahally, accused No.1 came there. There was an altercation between the deceased and accused persons with respect to financial transactions, in which accused No.1 threatened to teach him a lesson. At about 10.00 p.m., when the deceased Chandrashekar was riding his motorcycle and Arunkumar and Lokesh were pillion riders, they were proceeding in one motorcycle and another eyewitness Shashank, in another motorcycle in order to go to their house. Then, in front of the house of one Hanumantharayappa on Sondekoppa road, the accused came in a Scorpio Car bearing No. KA-41-M-8525, driven by accused No.1 and dashed to the motorcycle driven by the deceased. The deceased and pillion riders fell on the ground, accused No.1 ran the vehicle over the deceased. The friends of the injured took injured Chandrashekar to the Hospital. On receiving the information, the father of

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38333 CRL.A No. 1213 of 2024

¶31

the deceased went to the Hospital and enquired with the deceased, who told him that the accused No.1 with others ran over the vehicle on him. On the very night the deceased succumbed to injuries at 12.10 a.m. In the morning at 5.30 a.m., the father of the deceased lodged the complaint.

¶32

5. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered against this appellant-accused No.1, accused No.2 - Gowtham and another in Crime No.156/2023 of Madanayakanahally Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Appellant/ accused No.1 came to be arrested on 18.03.2023 and he is in judicial custody. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant and others for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120(b) r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The appellant/ accused No.1 filed Crl.Misc.No.1049/2023 seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by the

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38333 CRL.A No. 1213 of 2024

¶34

Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶35

The appellant earlier had filed

¶36

Crl.P.No.1360/2023 challenging the rejection of his bail application and the same came to be dismissed by judgment dated 24.08.2023. Thereafter, the appellant/ accused No.1 filed a petition seeking grant of bail and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in the present appeal.

¶37

Learned counsel for appellant would contend that the appellant is in judicial custody since more than one and half year and the trial is not yet commenced. He referring to provisions of Section 14 of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, contends that the trial has to be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet, with this he prays to allow the appeal and grant of bail, or otherwise seeks directions to the Special Court to dispose of the case registered against the appellant/ accused No.1 expeditiously.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:38333 CRL.A No. 1213 of 2024

¶40

Learned High Court Government Pleader would

¶41

contend that considering the heinousness of the offence prima facie case, threat to the witnesses this Court earlier has confirmed the order of rejection of bail application. He contends that there are no grounds for grant of bail in this successive bail petition.

¶42

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would also

¶43

reiterate the contentions raised by learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶44

This Court in the judgment dated 24.08.2023 passed in Crl.A. No.1360/2023 has dismissed the appeal challenging the rejection of the bail order, on the ground that there are eye-witnesses, injured witnesses, prima facie case, heinousness of the offence and threat to the prosecution witnesses. Now, the appellant in the successive petition is seeking bail on the ground that, trial is not yet commenced. Section 14 of the SC/ ST (POA) Act, 1989, reads thus:

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:38333 CRL.A No. 1213 of 2024

¶47

“14. Special Court and Exclusive Special Court.—(1) For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish an Exclusive Special Court for one or more Districts:

¶48

Provided that in Districts where less number of cases under this Act is recorded, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for such Districts, the Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act:

¶49

Provided further that the Courts so established or specified shall have power to directly take cognizance of offences under this Act.

¶50

(2) It shall be the duty of the State Government to establish adequate number of Courts to ensure that cases under this Act are disposed of within a period of two months, as far as possible.

¶51

(3) In every trial in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, the proceedings shall be continued from day-today until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing:

¶52

Provided that when the trial relates to an offence under this Act, the trial shall, as far as possible, be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.”

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38333 CRL.A No. 1213 of 2024

¶54

The proviso to Section 14 mandates that trial to be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet. The offences involved in the case are not only offence under SC/ ST (POA) Act but, also under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant/ accused No.1 is in judicial custody since more than one and half years. Merely because he is in custody for more than one and half year, is not a ground for grant of bail as the offence alleged against him is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There are no grounds for grant of bail in this successive bail petition.

¶55

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The Special Court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case registered against the appellant/ accused No.1 as early as possible.

¶56

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶57

PJ CT:ANB

¶58

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3

Chandan K @ Chandan Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chandan K @ Chandan Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin S/O Chandrakant Seth Vs Kiran Rajappa Jadhav

Nitin S/O Chandrakat Seth Vs Mahantesh S/O. Tukaram Kalal

Nitin S/O Chandrakat Seth Vs Gadigeppa Barmappa Walikar

Shankar Vs State of Karnataka

Shreedhar S/O Ashokappa Chikkannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Divisional Controller Nwkrtc Vs Shri.Irangouda Basanagouda Patil