Allowed

V N Karthik v. State by Bagalu Police

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024CRL.A/1550/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals under Section 14(A)(2) SC/ST Act against rejection of bail in a case of assault on a Scheduled Caste victim under BNS and SC/ST (POA) Act. No specific overt acts were alleged against these accused; they had been interrogated and the preliminary charge sheet filed. Bail granted with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to appellants (A5, A8, A9, A11 per FIR) in Crime No.205/2024 on bond of Rs.1,00,000 each with two sureties, with conditions; order dated 12.08.2024 set aside.

V N Karthik Vs State by Bagalu Police — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38742 CRL.A No. 1550 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 1570 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1550 OF 2024

¶7

C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1570 OF 2024

¶9

IN CRL.A No. 1550/2024

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

V N KARTHIK, S/O LATE NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, BANDIKODIKODIGEHALLI, JALAHOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALORE, PIN CODE:562149.

¶12

MUNIRAJU,

¶13

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, BANDIKODIKODIGEHALLI, JALAHOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALORE, PIN CODE: 562149.

¶16

RAVIKUMAR V B S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BANDIKODIKODIGEHALLI, JALAHOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALORE, PIN CODE: 562149.

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI. B V PINTO.,ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. RAJU C N.,ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38742 CRL.A No. 1550 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 1570 of 2024

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE BY BAGALU POLICE, BENGALORE, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COUR OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE - 560009.

¶22

MUNIRAJU B R S/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, BANDIKODIKODIGEHALLI, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALORE, PIN CODE - 562149.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R.,HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H MOHAN KUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE AND ENLARGE ON BAIL IN CR.NO.205/2024 OF BAGLUR POLICE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, FOR THE OFENCE P/US/ 109, 118(1), 3(5), 351(2), 61(2) OF BNS AND SEC. 3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

¶26

IN CRL.A NO. 1570/2024

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI PRAKASH S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. B K HALLI, JALA HOBLI, BANDEKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,. BENGALURU - 562149.

¶29

...APPELLANT

¶30

(BY SRI. GADILINGAPPA G M.,ADVOCATE)

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38742 CRL.A No. 1550 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 1570 of 2024

¶32

AND:

¶33

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGALUR POLICE STATIOHN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶34

B R MUNIRAJU S/O P RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO. 105/157, BANDEKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562149.

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R.,HCGP FOR R1;

¶37

SRI. H MOHAN KUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶38

¶39

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38742 CRL.A No. 1550 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 1570 of 2024

¶42

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for appellants, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent / state and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 / complainant.

¶44

The learned Sessions Judge vide common order dated 12.08.2024 has rejected the bail petitions of the appellants. Hence, they have preferred these appeals to set aside the said order and to enlarge them on bail in Crime No.205/2024 of Bagalur Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru City.

¶45

Complaint is lodged by one B.R.Muniraju S/o late P.Rajappa, alleging that on 16.07.2024 at about 8:00.p.m., on account of previous enmity, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and assaulted one Chandan Kumar with an intention to commit his murder. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered against 16 named accused and others, for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 109, 118(1), 3(5), 351(2), 61(2) of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38742 CRL.A No. 1550 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 1570 of 2024

¶47

Appellants in Crl.A.No.1550/2024 are accused Nos.5,

¶48

9 and 11 and appellant in Crl.A.No.1570/2024 is accused No.8.

¶49

The learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the bail petition, has observed that there are reasonable grounds to believe at this stage that the accused persons have committed offences alleged against them and it is clear from the complaint averments and Court records that the injured Chandan Kumar was assaulted with machu, longs on head, neck, legs and hands and is still taking treatment in ICU as inpatient. Therefore, if the accused are released on bail, they may threaten and tamper with the prosecution witnesses, particularly the complainant. It is further observed that the investigation is still in progress and the police have to collect other materials and therefore, if bail is granted at this stage, the accused may abscond and may not be available for hearing of the case before the Court.

¶50

The learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 have contended that all the accused have come to the spot holding deadly weapons with a common object of committing the murder of Chandan

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38742 CRL.A No. 1550 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 1570 of 2024

¶52

Kumar and in view of prima-facie materials collected during the investigation, they are not entitled for bail. They contended that the appellants may tamper with the prosecution witnesses if bail is granted to them.

¶53

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that

¶54

on account of admitted rivalry, the complainant, none other than the uncle of the victim has implicated as many accused as possible. There are no specific allegations against the appellants that they have assaulted the victim with any dangerous weapons. They contended that no weapons have been recovered from these appellants. They are arrested and interrogated and now the investigation is completed. The appellants are ready and willing to abide by terms and conditions. Accordingly, sought to enlarge the appellants on bail.

¶55

A perusal of the complaint averments does not disclose specific overt acts alleged against these appellants. According to the prosecution all the accused picked up quarrel with one Chandan Kumar and assaulted him on his head, neck and legs with machu and long, with an intention to commit his

¶56

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38742 CRL.A No. 1550 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 1570 of 2024

¶57

murder. One B.K.Manju and Raja, accused Nos.1 and 2 in the FIR are alleged to have given supari to commit the offence. It is alleged that all the accused have abused the victim, a member of Scheduled Caste.

¶58

The learned High Court Government Pleader has furnished copy of the charge sheet. Names of accused Nos.1, 2 and 15 mentioned in the FIR are dropped while filing the charge sheet. The appellants namely Accused Nos.5, 8, 9 and 11 in the FIR are arraigned as A3, A6, A7 and A9 in the charge sheet. Accused Nos.3 and 4 in the FIR are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 and A2 in the charge sheet. It is alleged that the said accused assaulted the victim with a chopper on his head and other parts of his body. The allegations against these appellants are that they have assaulted the victim by hands and abused him etc.

¶59

Appellants are already interrogated. They are not required for further interrogation. Preliminary charge sheet is filed. It is also submitted that even the appellants belong to Scheduled Caste and therefore, the offences alleged under the provisions of the SC and ST (POA) Act are not applicable to them.

¶60

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38742 CRL.A No. 1550 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 1570 of 2024

¶61

In the above facts and circumstances, the appellants

¶62

can be admitted to bail by imposing necessary conditions. Accordingly, the following orders:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i) Appeals are allowed .

¶65

ii) The order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore rejecting the bail petitions of these appellants is set aside.

¶66

iii) Appellants / Accused Nos.5, 8, 9 and 11 (as per FIR) in Crime No.205/2024 of Bagalur Police Station, Bangalore city shall be released on bail subject to following conditions:

¶67

a) They shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) each, with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court.

¶68

b) They shall furnish proof of their residential address and shall inform the

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:38742 CRL.A No. 1550 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 1570 of 2024

¶70

¶71

Investigation Officer/Court, if there is any change in the address.

¶72

c) They shall not leave the jurisdiction

¶73

of the trial Court without prior permission of

¶74

the learned session Judge.

¶75

d) They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶76

e) They shall appear before the trial

¶77

Court on all dates of hearing without fail.

¶78

Violation of any of the above conditions shall result in cancellation of bail.

¶79

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶80

PHM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

V N Karthik v. State by Bagalu Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V N Karthik v. State by Bagalu Police

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 Shivanna Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshmi Narayan Vs State through Siddapura P S

Chetankumar@ Chetu @Basaralu Chetu Vs State of Karnataka

Vidyadhara B S @ Vikas Vs State of Karnataka

Shivaprasad @ Prasi @ Parsi Vs State by Thilak Park Police Station

Derangula Madhu Vs State of Karnataka by