Dismissed

Sri Sathyanarayana @ Sathya v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2024CRL.A/1569/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed to set aside an order rejecting bail for an appellant accused of causing death by stabbing. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the grave nature of the offence, potential threat to witnesses, and the appellant's background precluded bail.

What did the court decide?

None. The appeal was dismissed and the impugned order rejecting bail was upheld.

Sri Sathyanarayana @ Sathya Vs State of Karnataka by — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:42535 CRL.A No. 1569 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1569 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SATHYANARAYANA @ SATHYA S/O SUBRAMANYA T AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS (PRESENT AGE) R/AT No.115/11, 13^TH CROSS 1^ST MAIN, B M SHREE NAGARA, METAGALLI MYSORE – 570 016.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI GAURAV SUBRAMANYAM, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY METAGALLI POLICE STATION MYSORE CITY REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

SRI AVINASH B S S/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS (PRESENT AGE) R/AT 102/B-1 SOMANNA NAVARA THOTADA MANE METAGALLI MYSURU - 570 016.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1 R2 – SERVED. UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42535 CRL.A No. 1569 of 2024

¶19

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT MYSORE ON 01.12.2023 IN SPECIAL C.No.369/2020 AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by appellant - accused No. 1

¶24

praying to set aside the order dated 01.12.2023 passed in Spl.C. No. 369/2020 by the VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, whereunder the bail application filed by appellant - accused No.1 in crime No.87/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as `SC ST Act’) came to be rejected.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for appellant - accused

¶26

No. 1 and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 – State.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42535 CRL.A No. 1569 of 2024

¶28

Respondent No. 2 – inspite of service of notice remained absent and unrepresented.

¶29

The accusation against the appellant and other accused in column No. 17 of the charge sheet is that on 24.08.2019 at about 10.10 pm the deceased Somashekar @ Deadly went to survey No. 103 of Metagalli along with C.W.2 and C.W.3 in his passenger Auto bearing No. KA05-AA-5654 and at that time, accused Nos. 1 to 3 and C.W.4 were present in that place and accused Nos. 2 and

¶30

3 were smoking cigarette and deceased Somashekar @ Deadly asked accused No. 2 to give him one cigarette. At that time when the deceased asked to give cigarette, accused No. 3 refused to give him and therefore being insulted the deceased assaulted him with his hand. Accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted the deceased with hands. There was a quarrel between the deceased and accused No. 3 and at that time accused No. 1 had put torch from his mobile to the face of the deceased. The deceased asked him to switch off the torch. Accused No.1 abused

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42535 CRL.A No. 1569 of 2024

¶32

the deceased and being enraged by that, the deceased snatched the mobile phone from accused No. 1 and gave him life threat. At that time accused No.1 told that he was a rowdy-sheeter and nobody would dare to touch him and brought dragger kept under his bike seat and assaulted the deceased two times on his stomach and caused his death and all accused went away. The appellant – accused No.1 who was in custody had filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order. Said order passed by the Sessions Court has been challenged in this appeal.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in the charge sheet C.W.2 to C.W.4 are cited as eye witnesses and they have been examined now and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. The dragger has been seized at the instance of accused No.3. Material witnesses are examined and only mahazar and official witnesses are to be examined. The appellant - accused is in custody since last 4 years. On these grounds

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:42535 CRL.A No. 1569 of 2024

¶36

he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to appellant - accused No.1.

¶37

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for

¶38

respondent No.1 – State would contend that accused No.1 is the main person who has assaulted the deceased with a dragger and caused his death. Prosecution has to examine other witnesses cited in the charge sheet. Merely because eye witnesses are examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution is not a ground for grant of bail. He submits that accused No.1 is a rowdy-sheeter and if he is granted bail there is a threat to the other prosecution witnesses. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties this Court has perused the impugned order and other material placed on record.

¶40

The accusation against this appellant - accused No.1 is that he stabbed the deceased with dragger and caused his death. The offence alleged against appellant -

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42535 CRL.A No. 1569 of 2024

¶42

accused No. 1 is a heinous offence punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. Merely because material witnesses are examined and out of them eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution is not a ground to grant bail to the appellant – accused. The prosecution has to examine other witnesses. If appellant - accused No.1 is granted bail there is a threat to the other prosecution witnesses. More so, the appellant - accused No. 1 is stated to be a rowdy-sheeter. In view of the above, there are no grounds made out to set aside the impugned order and grant bail to the appellant - accused No.1 .

¶43

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶44

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶45

LRS

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri Sathyanarayana @ Sathya v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sathyanarayana @ Sathya v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K. B. Harisha Vs the State of Karnataka

Dinesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr K S Mukunda Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

Dilip @ Chikkaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Saddam S/O Musa Yadahalli Vs the State of Karnataka