Allowed

Mr. Ravikumar v. State by

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2024CRL.A/1597/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail appeal, the Karnataka High Court set aside the rejection of bail for accused No. 2, holding that mere instigation without an overt act of assault, combined with the unavailability of the accused for interrogation post-charge sheet, provided sufficient grounds for release.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 is set aside; bail is granted to the appellant – accused No. 2 subject to a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety and conditions not to tamper witnesses.

Mr. Ravikumar Vs State by — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:5077 CRL.A No. 1597 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1597 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. RAVIKUMAR S/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT GANAPATHINAGAR LALITHA NIVAS GANIGARAHALLI PIPELINE ROAD CHIKKABANAVARA BANGALORE – 560 090.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI H C SHANKAR, SRI SRINIVAS GOWDA S N, ADVOCATES SRI H C SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

STATE BY SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE – 562 130.

¶14

MR. GOWTHAM S/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS RESIDING AT GANAPATHI NAGAR GANIGARAHALLI MAIN ROAD

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:5077 CRL.A No. 1597 of 2023

¶17

CHIKKABANAVARA POST BANGALORE – 560 090.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. N ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1 R2 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.07.2023 PASSED BY HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT BENGALURU FOR REJECTING THE BAIL UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. IN SPL. C. No.618/2023 AND ORDER TO RELEASE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.2 ON BAIL IN CR.No.96/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307, 302, 109, 114, 115, 34 OF IPC R/W SECTION 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by accused No. 2 praying to

¶23

set aside the order dated 05.07.2023 passed in Spl.C. No. 618/2023 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru whereunder the bail application of this appellant – accused No. 2 sought in respect of crime No. 96/2023 of Soladevanahalli Police station for offence under Sections 307, 302, 109, 114, 115 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and (s), 3(2)(v) of SC ST (POA) Act, 1989 came to be rejected.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5077 CRL.A No. 1597 of 2023

¶25

Heard learned counsel for appellant – accused No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 – State. Inspite of service of notice respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶26

Case of the prosecution is that on 08.04.2023 when the deceased – Muniraju and C.W.1 – Gautham went near the office of C.W.16 and were talking with him, at that time C.W.2 made a phone call to the mobile of deceased – Muniraju and told him that due to old enemity, accused No. 1 holding club, was making galata near the house. At that time, C.W.1 and deceased – Muniraju came

¶27

near the house and at that time, accused No. 1 was making galata in high pitch and accused No. 2 was also present there. Deceased - Muniraju asked accused No. 1 why he was making galata. At that time, accused No. 1 asked him even if he smokes cigarette in front of his house what he will do and abused him by taking his caste name in vulgar words and told him that he will finish him and took cricket bat from the shop of C.W.14 and at that time accused No. 2 instigated him not to leave them and

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:5077 CRL.A No. 1597 of 2023

¶29

accused No. 1 assaulted on the left hand, head and other parts of the body of C.W.2 and also assaulted the deceased – Muniraju on his head and other parts of the body and he sustained severe bleeding injuries and he was taken to the hospital. At the time of incident accused No. 3

¶30

was recording the incident in his mobile and instigated accused No.1 to assault them. Case has been registered on the complaint of respondent No. 2. After investigation charge sheet came to be filed against the appellant and others for offence under Sections 307, 302, 109, 114, 115 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and (s),

¶31

3(2)(v) of SC ST (POA) Act, 1989.

¶32

Appellant – accused No.2 who came to be arrested on 08.04.2023, is in judicial custody and he filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

¶33

Learned counsel for appellant – accused No. 2 would contend that the accusation leveled against this appellant – accused No. 2 is that he instigated accused No.1 to assault the deceased and C.W.1. As charge sheet

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5077 CRL.A No. 1597 of 2023

¶35

is filed, the appellant – accused No. 2 is not required for custodial interrogation. Accused No. 3 who is similarly placed has been granted bail by the trial Court. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to appellant – accused No. 2.

¶36

Per contra learned HCGP would contend that this appellant – accused No. 2 instigated accused No. 1 to assault the deceased and C.W.1. Said incident is witnessed by C.W.2, C.W.3 and C.W.10. Charge sheet material show material against appellant – accused No. 2 for the offence alleged against him. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶37

Having heard learned counsel for the parties this Court has perused the impugned order and charge sheet records.

¶38

On perusal of column No. 7 of the charge sheet, accusation leveled against this appellant – accused No. 2 is that he was present along with accused No.1 at the spot and at that time, he instigated accused No. 1 to assault the deceased and C.W.1. There is no overt act

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5077 CRL.A No. 1597 of 2023

¶40

alleged against this appellant – accused No. 2 of assaulting the deceased and C.W.1. Appellant – accused No. 2 is in custody since 08.04.2023 and as charge sheet is filed, he is not required for custodial interrogation. Without considering all these aspects learned Sessions/Special Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference by this Court.

¶41

The appellant – accused No. 2 has made out

¶42

grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. In the result, the following;

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed in Spl.C. No. 618/2023 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is set aside. The bail application of appellant – accused No.2 is allowed and he is granted bail in crime No. 96/2023 of Soladevanahalli Police station subject to following conditions:

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:5077 CRL.A No. 1597 of 2023

¶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

¶48

satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶49

II. The appellant – accused No.2 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶50

III. The appellant – accused No.2 shall appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing, unless exempted, and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

LRS

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Mr. Ravikumar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ravikumar v. State by

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. Narayanaswamy B.V. Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Harijana Shivashankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramalingaiah @ Ramalingegowda Vs State by

Shivakumara Vs State of Karnataka

Manikanta Swamy S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sidaraju Vs K Kumar