Allowed

Raju @ Pintu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2024CRL.A/1551/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a murder case under IPC and SC/ST Act sections appealed against rejection of his bail application. Noting this Court had granted bail to similarly placed accused No.1 based on circumstantial evidence with no custodial interrogation needed, bail was granted to accused No.2 on grounds of parity.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; appellant released on bail with Rs.1,00,000 personal bond plus one surety, subject to no witness-tampering and attendance at all hearings.

Raju @ Pintu Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:51163 CRL.A No. 1551 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1551 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJU @ PINTU S/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS KURUBARA STREET, YELANDURU UTP 17926, DETINED IN DISTRICT PRISON CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI NAGARAJ S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELANDURU POLICE STATION CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶14

REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

MALLAIAH S/O DODDAIAH AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS HONNASHETTARHUNDI VILLAGE – 571 111. GUNDLUPETE TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 SERVED. UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:51163 CRL.A No. 1551 of 2024

¶20

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.11.2023 IN SPL.C.No.82/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by accused No.2 praying to set-aside the order dated 28.11.2023 passed in Special Case No.82/2023 whereunder, the bail application of this appellant – accused No.2 sought in respect of Crime No.24/2023 of Yelandur police station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120B r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”), came to be rejected.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:51163 CRL.A No. 1551 of 2024

¶27

Case of the prosecution is that; the deceased

¶28

Sri.Somesh belongs to Scheduled caste community and accused No.1 knew the same. The deceased Sri.Somesh had expressed his intention to sleep with the sister of accused No.1 and therefore, accused No.1 decided to murder the deceased Sri.Somesh. He informed the same to his aunt's son i.e. the appellant – accused No.2. The appellant – accused No.2 asked accused No.1 to bring the deceased Sri.Somesh to Yalandur. On 27.02.2023 accused No.1 brought Sri.Somesh to Yalandur on the motor vehicle which is not having number plate and met accused No.2. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 took the deceased Sri.Somesh to Renukamba Bar and made the deceased to consume alcohol and thereafter, all three went near Junior College of Yalandur. The appellant – accused No.2 went to the shop of CW9 and brought one rod from the said Gujari shop. All the three went to near Kesthuru Cross Kabini Channal to the land bearing Sy.No.207/2B2 and accused No. 2 assaulted the deceased Sri.Somesh by rod on his head and accused No.1 assaulted the deceased

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:51163 CRL.A No. 1551 of 2024

¶30

Sri.Somesh on his face and other parts of the body and committed his murder. Thereafter, accused No.1 has written the chits stating that the deceased himself is the reason for his death. Charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the appellant – accused No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 – complainant has remained absent and unrepresented.

¶32

The appellant – accused No.2 who is in judicial custody has filed bail application in Special Case No.82/2023 and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 28.11.2023. The said order is challenged in this appeal by learned counsel for the appellant – accused No.2.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant – accused No.2 would contend that this Court has granted bail to accused

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51163 CRL.A No. 1551 of 2024

¶35

No.1 and this appellant – accused No.2 is similarly placed to that of accused No.1 and therefore, he is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity.

¶36

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State would contend that the offences alleged against the appellant – accused No.2 are heinous offences. There are circumstances to indicate the involvement of this appellant – accused No.2 in commission of the offences alleged against him. On perusal of the charge sheet material, there is a prima facie case against him for the alleged offences. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the impugned order and the charge sheet material and the order passed in Crl.A.No.1439/2023.

¶38

This Court while granting bail to accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.1439/2023 has observed thus;

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:51163 CRL.A No. 1551 of 2024

¶41

“7.The motive alleged against this appellant/accused No.1 is that the deceased Somesh expressed his intention to sleep with his sister and therefore, the appellant/accused No.1 with the help of the accused No.2 committed the murder of the deceased Somesh. The accusation in the charge sheet is that accused Nos.1 and 2 took the deceased and assaulted him with rod on his head and other parts of the body and committed his murder. There are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The two circumstances against this appellant/accused No.1 are that he is last seen with the deceased and accused No.2 in the Renukamba Bar by the staff of the Renukamba Bar on 27.02.2023 at about 2.07p.m and it is recorded in the CCTV footage. The other circumstance is that the chits were found on the spot contained hand writing of this appellant/accused No.1. There is no recovery of any article at the instance of this appellant/accused No.1 as the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution is to prove each of the circumstances at the trial. As charge sheet is filed, the appellant/accused No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation.”

¶42

Considering the above aspect, the appellant – accused No.2 who is also similarly placed to that of accused No.1 who has been granted bail by this Court.

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:51163 CRL.A No. 1551 of 2024

¶44

Therefore, the appellant – accused No.2 is also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. Without considering these aspects, the learned Special Judge has erred in rejecting the bail application of this appellant – accused No.2. The appellant – accused No.2 has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. In the result, the following;

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The appeal is allowed . The impugned order passed in S.C.No.82/2023 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajnagar is set-aside. The bail application of the appellant – accused No.2 stands allowed . The appellant – accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.24/2023 of Yalandur Police Station, subject to the following conditions;

¶47

(i) The appellant – accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One lakh only), with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:51163 CRL.A No. 1551 of 2024

¶49

¶50

(ii) The appellant – accused No.2 shall not threaten the complainant or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶51

(iii) The appellant – accused No.2 shall appear before the Trial Court on all the dates of hearing, unless exempted and co-operate for speedy disposal of the case.

¶52

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶53

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Raju @ Pintu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Pintu 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

Yaasin @ Yaasin Sharif Vs State by Nagamangala Town Police

Kalesha R @ Vaddra Kallappa @ Rattihalli Kalesh S/O Anjinappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallikarjun S/O Ramakrishna Hadapad Vs the State of Karnataka

Chennakeshava Murthy Gowda Vs State by the Station House Officer

Sri Anand M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Bharath @ Nepali Vs State of Karnataka