Dismissed

Manjunatha R @ Manju v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2024CRL.A/1647/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.3 in a murder case sought bail via appeal after trial court rejected his application, citing delay in trial and absence from FIR. Court found circumstantial evidence linking him to the killing of an SC/ST member, noted threats to the widow-complainant and another pending murder case against him, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

None granted; bail denied, appeal dismissed.

Manjunatha R @ Manju Vs the State of Karnataka by — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:53144 CRL.A No. 1647 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1647 OF 2024 (U/S 14(A) (2)-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANJUNATHA R @ MANJU S/O. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT. SHRIDHAR'S RENT HOUSE, ARUN ICE CREAM ROAD, DOMBARAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 162.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. NAGARALE SANTOSH SUBHASHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU.

¶14

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:53144 CRL.A No. 1647 of 2024

¶17

SRI. OMKARPPA, S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA, R/AT. NO. 150, SANJEEVENI LAYOUT, LAKSHMIPURA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 562 162.

¶18

SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O VENKATARAMAIYA, OBANYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBALI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. MADHUKARA MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. MANJULA D., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶21

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.605/2024 DATED 03.05.2024 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.886/2022 (CR.NO.423/2022) OF MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 302,201 OF IPC, SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:53144 CRL.A No. 1647 of 2024

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal filed by the appellant/accused Nos.3 under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, for setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.605/2024, dated 03.05.2024 for having rejected the bail application of this appellant.

¶28

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, learned HCGP for the state and counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶29

The case of the prosecution is that, on the complaint filed by the Omkarappa the police registered the FIR on 30.08.2022 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 r/w Section 149 of IPC., against the unknown persons. During the investigation it came to know a missing complaint was also filed by the wife of the deceased on 27.08.2022 alleging that her husband is missing. Later the dead body was identified by the respondent No.2 and during the investigation

¶30

the police arrested the appellant as well as accused No.2 on 15.09.2022. They have been remanded to the judicial custody.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:53144 CRL.A No. 1647 of 2024

¶32

Previously their bail application came to be rejected. Hence they approached this court by filing Crl.A.No.666/2023 which also came to be rejected on 30.06.2023. Once again the accused No.3 is before this court after rejection of the bail application by the Trial Court.

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that, the name of the appellant is not appeared in the FIR or in the complaint, it was against unknown person. The statement of CW.3 is pending as against the accused No.1 and accused No.1 has seen the deceased with the company of the accused No.1 but not this appellant, there is no material placed on record to show he has committed offence except the confession statement of the co-accused. The investigation has completed long back, charge sheet has been already filed, appellant is in custody more than two year, trial not yet commenced. Therefore, prayed for granting the bail.

¶34

Per contra, learned HCGP seriously objected the bail petition and contended that there is circumstantial evidence made against the accused, which reveals himself and other accused were contacted the CW.14 and they took the car and

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:53144 CRL.A No. 1647 of 2024

¶37

committed the murder. CW.3 also given statement before the police. The deceased was died due to the multiple injuries caused by the accused persons and this accused also involved in one more case in Maddur Police Station, in Crime No.206/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 read with Section 149 of IPC., therefore prayed for rejecting the bail application.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also seriously objected the appeal and contended that there is CCTV footage collected by the police from the seen offence, where the accused took along with the deceased, which was already argued before this court and bail came to be rejected. For one or other reasons the accused persons filing application after application and delay the trial, this is not the fact of the Trial Court in delay in conducting the trial. The accused persons also made a threat to the complainant, she is a widow and having two children, where accused persons are threatening her to go out of the village. Therefore, if the bail is granted definitely appellant will threaten and tamper the prosecution witness. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:53144 CRL.A No. 1647 of 2024

¶41

Having heard the arguments and perused the records, especially the order passed by this court on the earlier occasion. This Court on considering case on merits and after hearing both counsels rejected the bail application. Now the present appeal is filed on the additional ground that there is a delay in conducting the trial. On careful reading of the order and charge sheet material which reveals, though the FIR came to be registered against the unknown persons but the accused No.1 was arrested since CW.3 given statement that on the day of incident the accused No.1 took the deceasedVenkataramaiah along with him in the Toyata Qualis Car belongs to CW.14. Thereafter the accused No.1 alone came without the deceased, when the CW.3 questioned what happened to the deceased, that time the accused No.1 said to be told he has taught a lesson to him. Thereafter the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. The post mortem report reveals there is a multiple injuries sustained for the deceased which was the reason for the death. This accused also said to be assaulted on the head and other accused said to be assaulted with stick where even tooth were also broken as per post mortem report. The statement of CW.14 who is none other than the known person to this

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:53144 CRL.A No. 1647 of 2024

¶44

accused/appellant and other accused Nos.1 and 2, were altogether went along with the deceased and they taken a party, thereafter they also said to be had liquor along with them. Subsequently, while dropping the CW.14 by this accused person they took the deceased and committed murder and thrown the body in order to screening the offence. The police have investigated the case and arrested the accused persons and filed a charge sheet. There are circumstantial witnesses placed on record to show the involvement of the accused/appellant in the criminal case. Of course, even prima facie material placed on record that cannot be a ground for rejecting the bail application except any exceptional circumstances to reject the bail application. Where in this case they committed the murder of a person who belongs to the members of the SC/ST. Apart from that CW-2 having two children where there is threat made by this accused person and is nothing but tampering the witness. That apart this accused also involved along with the other accused in Crime No.206/2022 for committing murder in Maddur police, a copy of the FIR has been produced by the HCGP which reveals his name is found in the FIR along with the other accused, which reveals he is habitual offender, committing murder. Therefore if

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:53144 CRL.A No. 1647 of 2024

¶47

the bail is granted definitely he may tamper the prosecution witnesses and also chances of committing similar offences. That apart there is a delay in conducting the trial by the trial court that as per the submission made by the counsel for the respondent No.2 that for one or the other reason the accused persons filing the bail application one after the another after rejection of their application which caused the delay. Therefore, it cannot be said that the delay in conducting trial and seeking bail on that ground. Therefore the grounds urged by the learned counsel is not sufficient to grant bail in this case. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/accused is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶48

8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

Appeal is dismissed.

¶51

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶52

SRK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2 CT:SK

Manjunatha R @ Manju v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunatha R @ Manju v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Krishna Vs Sri.K.S.Raghavendra

Smt Sujaya Gangadhar Murthy Vs Krishnappa

Pramod N Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Prashanth Rai Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ravindranath Mane Vs Smt. Meera Satyananda Nikam

Thimmaiah Vs Smt. Rani @ Indrani