Allowed

Manikanta Swamy S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2024CRL.A/163/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of bail to accused No.1 in a murder case arising from a temple-entry quarrel. The court found no overt act of assault alleged against him and noted bail granted to similarly placed co-accused No.2, allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and enlarged him on bail with conditions including personal bond and no tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail-rejection order set aside; appellant released on bail in crime No.173/2023 on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one like surety, subject to conditions.

Manikanta Swamy S Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5078 CRL.A No. 163 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 163 OF 2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MANIKANTA SWAMY S S/O SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT: No.614/1, SRIRAMPUR STREET WARD No.8, BYRAPURA T NARASIPURA TOWN MYSORE – 571 124. OCC:SELF-EMPLOYED(REAL ESTATE)

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI H S CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAJATH, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

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

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF T NARASIPURA P.S MYSORE REP. BY: THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

RAMANUJAM

¶13

S/O LATE N S RAJAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT: DOOR No.38 CHIKKA ANGADI BEEDHI T NARASIPURA TOWN

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:5078 CRL.A No. 163 of 2024

¶16

MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 124. OCC:PRIVATE EMPLOYEE

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI CHANDRAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 V/O DTD. 25.01.2024, NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶19

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2023 IN SPL.C.No.647/2023 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.143, 147, 148, 504, 307, 302 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) 2015 AGAINST THE ACCUSED ARISING OUT OF CR. No.173/2023 ON T.NARASIPURA P.S., MYSURU DISTRICT PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SEPCIAL JUDGE AT MYSURU AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL, WHO IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED No.1 AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by appellant - accused No. 1

¶23

praying to set aside the order dated 23.11.2023 passed in Spl.C. No. 647/2023 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, whereunder the bail application of this appellant - accused No. 1 and others sought in respect of crime No. 173/2023 of T.Narasipura Police station for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC ST (POA) Act, 1989 came to be rejected.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5078 CRL.A No. 163 of 2024

¶25

Heard learned Senior counsel for appellant -

¶26

accused No. 1 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State. Issuance of notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with since no offences are alleged against this appellant - accused No. 1 under Section 3 of SC ST (POA) Act, 1989.

¶27

Case of the prosecution is that on 08.07.2023 there was Hanuma Jayanthi program and respondent No.2 and others were stopping the entry of the vehicles into the temple premises. At that time, accused No.1 – Manikanta and appellant - accused No. 2 – Sandesh were entering on motorbike through main door of the temple and respondent No.2 and Gopala asked the volunteers not to allow the vehicles inside and accused Nos.1 and 2 were enraged by the said aspect. Thereafter, on 09.07.2023 at about 04.00 pm when respondent No.2 and deceased Venugopal were returning the goods brought for the function, at that time, accused Nos.1 and 4 quarreled with them, torn the clothes of the deceased – Venugopal, assaulted him on his lip and caused injury. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 assaulted the deceased – Venugopal and respondent No. 2 and Chetan pacified the

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:5078 CRL.A No. 163 of 2024

¶29

quarrel. Thereafter, at 08.15 pm accused No.1 made a phone call to the deceased – Venugopal asking him to come

¶30

near the service station for talks. When the deceased – Venugopal and others on motorcycle were near the fire service station, they saw accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 3 – 4 other persons were holding deadly weapons and when the

¶31

deceased - Venugopal and Chetan got down from the motorbike, accused No. 1 started assaulting the deceased – Venugopal and accused No.3 assaulted the deceased – Venugopal with glass bottle on his face and head and accused No. 4 assaulted with knife on his stomach, ribs and accused No. 6 with a broken glass bottle assaulted on different parts of the body of the deceased – Venugopal and accused No. 5 with a broken glass bottle assaulted him on his left rib and neck. At that time, respondent No.2 and others went to rescue him. At that time, accused No.4 assaulted with hands and broken glass bottle and accused No. 5 assaulted with a broken glass bottle on left side of rib, neck and attempted to commit the murder. Thereafter, the

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5078 CRL.A No. 163 of 2024

¶33

deceased – Venugopal was taken to hospital and the Doctor who examined him told that he was dead.

¶34

Appellant - accused No. 1 who was arrested on 10.07.2023 and who is in judicial custody filed bail application along with other accused and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 23.11.2023. Said order is challenged in this appeal.

¶35

Learned senior counsel appearing for appellant - accused No. 1 would contend that on perusal of the averments of the complaint, column No. 17 of the charge sheet and statement of eye witnesses, it is seen that no overt act is alleged against this appellant - accused No. 1. The only allegation against this appellant - accused No. 1 is that he earlier assaulted the deceased Venugopal in the morning and caused injury. The other allegation against this appellant - accused No. 1 was that he was present at the spot at the time of incident holding weapons. He further submits that accused No.2 who is similarly placed to that of appellant - accused No. 1 has been granted bail by this Court in Crl.A. No. 2397/2023 and therefore, this appellant -

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5078 CRL.A No. 163 of 2024

¶37

accused No. 1 is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to appellant - accused No. 1.

¶38

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 – State would contend that the offence alleged against this appellant - accused No. 1 is heinous offence. There was a conspiracy between appellant - accused No. 1 and other accused to kill the deceased Venugopal. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, appellant - accused No. 1 and other accused formed an unlawful assembly and held deadly weapons and assaulted the deceased Venugopal. There are eye witnesses to the incident and their statements are recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Considering all these aspects learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail application. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶39

Having heard learned counsel for parties this Court has gone through the impugned order and charge sheet material.

¶40

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:5078 CRL.A No. 163 of 2024

¶41

There was a quarrel between accused Nos. 1 and 2 and deceased Venugopal with regard to entry of motorbike

¶42

inside the temple premises. In that regard there was a quarrel at 03.30 pm on 08.07.2023 and at 04.00 pm on 09.07.2023. The appellant - accused No. 1 was present on those occasions and he is alleged to have assaulted the deceased – Venugopal with hands and caused injury. The main incident took place on 09.07.2023 at about 08.50 pm. Even though appellant - accused No. 1 is alleged to have been present at the spot at that time, there is no accusation against him of assaulting the deceased – Venugopal with weapons. The accusation of assaulting the deceased – Venugopal with weapons is alleged against accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. The only accusation against this appellant - accused No. 1 is of conspiracy with the other accused to kill deceased – Venogapal and being present at the spot at the time of incident with deadly weapon and no overt act of assault is alleged against appellant - accused No. 1. As charge sheet is filed, the appellant - accused No. 1 is not required for custodial interrogation. Considering all these

¶43

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:5078 CRL.A No. 163 of 2024

¶44

aspects, the appellant - accused No. 1 is entitled for grant of bail with conditions. Without considering all these aspects, learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. Apart from this, accused No. 2 who is similarly placed to that of appellant - accused No. 1 has been granted bail by this Court and therefore, appellant - accused No. 1 is also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity.

¶45

In view of the above, appellant - accused No. 1 has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. In the result, the following;

¶46

O R D E R

¶47

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order 23.11.2023 passed in Spl.C. No. 647/2023 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru is set aside insofar as appellant – accused No.1 is concerned. The bail application of appellant – accused No.1 is allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail in crime No. 173/2023 of T. Narasipura Police Station subject to the following conditions:

¶48

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:5078 CRL.A No. 163 of 2024

¶49

I. The appellant - accused No. 1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶50

II. The appellant - accused No. 1 shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶51

III. The appellant - accused No.1 shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶52

IV. The appellant - accused No.1 shall not commit any similar offence during the pendency of the case registered against him.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

LRS

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Manikanta Swamy S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikanta Swamy S 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. 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

Sidaraju Vs K Kumar

Mr. Ravikumar Vs State by