Dismissed

Ravi @ Palla v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2024CRL.P/13331/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed three criminal petitions filed for bail under Section 439 CrPC. The petitioners were accused in a daylight murder case involving armed robbery. The Court rejected bail applications citing serious charges, risk of witness tampering, criminal backgrounds of the accused, and rejected the delay in trial as a ground for bail release.

What did the court decide?

All three criminal petitions filed for bail enlargement were dismissed, and the petitioners are not entitled to bail.

Ravi @ Palla Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:12329 CRL.P No. 13331 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 13269 of 2023 CRL.P No. 1942 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13331 OF 2023 C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13269 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1942 OF 2024

¶9

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13331 OF 2023

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

RAVI @ PALLA S/O SELVA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 128, 3RD CROSS, CHOWDAIAH BLOCK R T NAGAR, BENGALURU 560032.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA

¶15

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KORAMANGALA P S REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560001.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)

¶20

¶21

CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER - ACCUSED NO.6 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.156/2021 REGISTERED BY KORAMANGALA P.S., BENGALURU OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 145, 147, 148, 120(B), 201, 307, 302, 35 AND 37

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:12329 CRL.P No. 13331 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 13269 of 2023 CRL.P No. 1942 of 2024

¶23

¶24

R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 25(1), (1-B), 27(3) INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959, PENDING BEFORE THE LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-67) S.C.NO.1416/2021.THE LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU HAS REJECTED THE BAIL APPLICATION ON 28.08.2023 IN S.C.NO.1416/2021, ETC.,

¶25

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13269 OF 2023

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

PRAKASH @ NENI S/O LATE ARUMAI RAJA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.806, 26TH CROSS, L.R. NAGAR, ADUGODI, VIVEKNAGAR POST, BENGALURU 563122.

¶28

…PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KORAMANGALA P S REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560001.

¶32

…RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)

¶34

¶35

CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER - ACCUSED NO.11 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.156/2021 REGISTERED BY KORAMANGALA P.S., BENGALURU OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 145, 147, 148, 120(B), 201, 307, 302, 35 AND 37 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 25(1), (1-B), 27(3) INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959, PENDING BEFORE THE LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH67) S.C.NO.1416/2021.THE LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:12329 CRL.P No. 13331 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 13269 of 2023 CRL.P No. 1942 of 2024

¶37

¶38

SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU HAS REJECTED THE BAIL APPLICATION ON 28.08.2023 IN S.C.NO.1416/2021, ETC.,

¶39

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1942 OF 2024

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

PRADEEP @ CHOTTE S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.47, I CROSS, I MAIN, M.G. GARDEN, NEELASANDRA, BENGALURU 560047.

¶42

…PETITIONER

¶43

(BY SRI TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶44

AND:

¶45

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KORAMANGALA P S REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560001.

¶46

…RESPONDENT

¶47

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)

¶48

¶49

CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER - ACCUSED NO.4 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.156/2021 REGISTERED BY KORAMANGALA P.S., BENGALURU OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 145, 147, 148, 120(B), 201, 307, 302, 35 AND 37 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 25(1), (1-B), 27(3) INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959, PENDING BEFORE THE LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-67) S.C.NO.1416/2021.THE LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU HAS REJECTED THE BAIL APPLICATION ON 28.08.2023 IN S.C.NO.1416/2021, ETC.,

¶50

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12329 CRL.P No. 13331 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 13269 of 2023 CRL.P No. 1942 of 2024

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The Crl.P. No.13331/2023 is filed by the petitioner - accused No.6; Crl.P. No.13269/2023 is filed by the petitioner - accused No.11 and Crl.P. No.13331/2023 is filed by the petitioner - accused No.4 to enlarge them on bail in SC No.1416/2021 pending on the file of LXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-67) arising out of the Cr. No.156/2021 of Koramangala Police, Bengaluru and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 120(B), 201, 307, 302, 35 & 37 r/w 149 of IPC and Sections 25(1) (1-B), 27(3) of Indian Arms Act, 1959.

¶54

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.

¶55

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one the wife of the deceased, the police have registered a case on 19.07.2021. It is alleged that when herself along with her deceased husband Joseph Babu @ Babu and three daughters went to Narayana E-Techno School for obtaining TC of her other two children and after obtaining the TC, they went to Union Bank at 1.00pm as she had work at the Bank. When

¶56

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12329 CRL.P No. 13331 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 13269 of 2023 CRL.P No. 1942 of 2024

¶57

she was climbing the stairs of the Bank, she heard the voice of her deceased husband and she saw three unknown persons were holding deadly weapons like, the machete and long were chasing her husband and trying to kill him. Her husband ran inside the Bank Manager's cabin in order to escape from the said persons, she also went inside the Bank. The said persons came inside the Manager's Cabin and broke the glass of the cabin and committed brutal murder of her husband. The Complainant tried to rescue her husband, but the said persons assaulted her also causing bleeding injuries on her left hand. The Bank Officials and public witnessed the incident. After committing the murder of the deceased, the said persons ran away with 5 to 6 persons, who stood out side on the two wheelers. After registering the FIR, during the investigation the Police arrested all the accused including accused Nos.4, 6 and 11, who are petitioners herein, on 28.07.2021. Subsequently, the Police completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet.

¶58

Accused No.11 has already filed a bail petition in Crl. P. No.7531/2021, which came to be dismissed on 29.11.2021.

¶59

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:12329 CRL.P No. 13331 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 13269 of 2023 CRL.P No. 1942 of 2024

¶60

Learned counsel petitioners contended that the

¶61

petitioners are in custody for more than two and half years. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already granted bail to accused Nos. 8 to 10 and there is no previous allegations against the accused No.4 and 11. The presence of accused No.11 was not spoken by the any of the witnesses and only circumstantial evidence is made out against him. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were actually committed the murder and the other accused said to be guarded out side the Bank and there is no overt act alleged against them. Even the identity of them is also not spoken by any of the witnesses, in the evidence of PW1 to 3. The learned counsel also contended that presently the trial Court is not holding sitting since the Presiding Officer was already transferred and there is no posting of the new Presiding Officer. The trial has not yet began and it may not conclude within a short period, therefore, keeping the petitioners - accused in custody will not serve any purpose. Hence, he prayed for granting bail to them.

¶62

Per contra, the learned SPP appearing on behalf of respondent - State filed statement of objections along with the photographs and other documents and seriously objected the

¶63

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:12329 CRL.P No. 13331 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 13269 of 2023 CRL.P No. 1942 of 2024

¶64

bail petition contending that accused No.1 to 9 were actually participated in the crime armed with deadly weapon, whereas the accused No.11 met the deceased near the house of the deceased early in the morning on the date of incident and he has gathered the information from the deceased that they are going to the Bank and as per his information the other accused followed the deceased and committed murder of the deceased.

¶65

This Court has already rejected the bail petition of accused No.11 on merits and there is no fresh ground made out by the learned counsel for petitioner - accused No.11. Regarding accused Nos.4 & 6 as they were participated with deadly weapon and the motor cycle belongs to accused No.8 was taken by the father-in-law of accused No.8. Accused No.4 and 8 escaped on the two wheeler - Motor Cycle, which was seized by the Police. The deadly weapons are also seized by the Police. The other accused also participated in the crime. The evidence of the witnesses are commenced, but cross-examination is not yet over. The accused persons belongs to rival gang having criminal background. The accused Nos.4 and 6 were already accused in various other cases and during their bail they have committed this offence. The day light murder committed by the

¶66

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:12329 CRL.P No. 13331 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 13269 of 2023 CRL.P No. 1942 of 2024

¶67

accused. There is specific allegations are made out against these petitioner - accused persons. If, they grant bail, they may hamper and tamper the prosecution witnesses and they are habitual offenders and Police have already invoked KCOCA Act against the accused No.6 in Cr. No.162/2023 of D.J. Halli Police Station. Hence, he prays for dismissal of these petitions.

¶68

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP and on perusal of the entire material on record, of course, the prosecution case reveals that on 19.07.2021 when the deceased and his wife about to go to

¶69

school in the morning in the Motor Cycle the accused No.11, one of the petitioner herein, met the deceased in front of his house and asked where he is going. In turn, the deceased informed him that they are going to school as well as Bank. Immediately, the accused No.11 given the information to the other accused, the movements of the deceased were watched by the other accused and finally when the deceased about to go to the Bank at about 1.00pm, the accused Nos.1 to 9 chased the deceased and the deceased for escape went in side the bank that too in the Manager's cabin, but accused Nos.1 to 3 went inside the bank and also in the cabin of the Bank Manager

¶70

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:12329 CRL.P No. 13331 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 13269 of 2023 CRL.P No. 1942 of 2024

¶72

and committed the murder of the deceased in presence of the Bank Manager of that Bank and also the other Bank officials. One of the accused also assaulted the CW1 - wife of the deceased, when she tried to prevent the accused.

¶73

The accused Nos.1 to 9 came near the Bank and

¶74

chased the deceased and committed murder. The CCTV Footages were collected by the Police and it reveals that of course, the accused persons were wearing helmet and mask at the time of evidence. But the substantial evidence collected by the Police reveals that they are the assailants who committed

¶75

the murder of petitioner No.1 due to rivalry between the accused No.10 and the deceased. This Court has already dismissed the bail petition of accused No.11 on merits of the case, who is petitioner in Crl.P. No.13269/2023 and other accused persons are approaching this Court for the first time.

¶76

The only ground urged by the learned counsel for petitioners is that the accused persons are in custody for more than two and a half years and trial may take some more time and not able to conclude due to transfer of the Presiding of Officer and co-accused was on bail.

¶77

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:12329 CRL.P No. 13331 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 13269 of 2023 CRL.P No. 1942 of 2024

¶78

I have perused order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the bail application of accused Nos.8 to 10. There is no role played by accused Nos.8 to 10, except

¶79

watching the moments of the deceased, of course, accused No.10 was not present on that day at the scene of crime, but there was rivalry between accused No.10 and the deceased. The Co-ordinate Bench was granted bail to accused Nos.8 to 10, where statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of accused Nos.2 and 3 does not reflect the name of accused Nos.8 to 10 and that accused No.10 is the only king pin. But, the Co-ordinate Bench has not gone into the merits of the case while granting bail to accused Nos.8 to 10 and the rejection of the bail to the other accused by this Court on the ground that the other accused persons murdering the deceased.

¶80

On perusal of the entire material on record it reveals that it is a day light murder by the accused persons in the presence of the public and Bank officials, that too, they chased the deceased into the Bank Manager's cabin and committed brutal murder, is nothing but a day light cold blooded murder by the gang including these petitioners. There are eye witness to the incident, not only CW1 to 3, as they

¶81

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:12329 CRL.P No. 13331 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 13269 of 2023 CRL.P No. 1942 of 2024

¶82

have already examined as PW1 to 3, the cross-examination of PW1 to 3 was deferred at the request of the learned counsel for accused for cross-examination. At this stage, if the petitioners were granted bail, there is every possibility of hampering PW1 to 3 and there is also chances that they may turn hostile when they come before the Court for cross-examination, is also not ruled out. That apart, the Police have already invoked the KCOCA Act against accused No.6, who is said to be accused in some other case and habitual offender. Most of the accused persons including the petitioners having criminal background and some are rowdy sheeters.

¶83

Therefore, merely that the Presiding Officer was transferred recently that itself is not a ground to grant bail to the petitioners in a grievous offence like a day light murder. The High Court may likely to transfer another Judge to the said Court in a short time since the month of April and May are the months where the Judicial Officers are transferred from one place to another on general transfer basis. Such being the case, the question of granting bail to the petitioners - accused persons, in such a serious case, on the ground that the Presiding Officer is transferred, is not a ground and even the in

¶84

12 -

¶85

NC: 2024:KHC:12329 CRL.P No. 13331 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 13269 of 2023 CRL.P No. 1942 of 2024

¶86

charge Court may take trial if a direction is issued by this Court to the trial Court for speedy disposal of the matter. Hence, I am* of the view that this ground is not available to the petitioners - accused persons and the offence is very serious in nature and also there is every possibility of hampering and tampering the case of the prosecution and even they may commit similar offences, if they grant bail.

¶87

Accordingly, looking in the merits of the case and

¶88

also materials on record and also facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners - accused persons are not entitled to bail. Accordingly, all the three criminal petitions are dismissed.

¶89

Sd/JUDGE

¶90

VK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Ravi @ Palla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi @ Palla 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K S Nagabhushana Vs Sri H B Sadashiva Jois

Sri.Harish v Vs Sri.Narayanaswamy @ Jcb Narayan

Sri Fairoz Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Srijayarame Gowda Vs Teh State of Karnataka

Boregowda Vs State by

Mr Aniruddha Mehta Vs the State of Karnataka