Allowed

Dhanush Kumar N @ Vale v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024CRL.A/1661/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal challenging bail rejection under the SC/ST (POA) Act in a murder case, the High Court observed that the appellant's role was limited to holding the deceased tightly while others assaulted him. With prosecution eye witnesses examined and no serious overt acts alleged against the appellant, the Court allowed the bail application with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; bail to appellant granted subject to execution of personal bond, no tampering with witnesses, and appearance on hearing dates.

Dhanush Kumar N @ Vale Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:44381 CRL.A No. 1661 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1661 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DHANUSH KUMAR N @ VALE S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT No.403, 2^ND CROSS NEAR METRO STATION DEEPANJALI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 026.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI H N RAMESHA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMAVATHY GANGABYRAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.P. AGRAHARA P.S. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

SMT. YASHODA W/O LATE GOVIND AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT No.50/1, 5^TH CROSS CHELUVAPPA GARDEN K.P. AGRAHARA BANGALORE – 560 023.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

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

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44381 CRL.A No. 1661 of 2024

¶19

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA)ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:28.08.2024 ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE ACCUSED No.4/APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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 accused No.4, praying to set-aside the order dated 28.08.2024, passed in Special Case No.1898/2023, by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder, the bail application filed by this appellant – accused No.4 sought in respect of Crime No.61/2023 of Kempapura Agrahara Police Station for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be rejected.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44381 CRL.A No. 1661 of 2024

¶25

Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing

¶26

for the appellant – accused No.4 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has remained absent and unrepresented.

¶27

Case of the prosecution is that; on 22.05.2023, at about 6.00 pm., in view of the village festival, accused No.1 came there and met CWs.8 to 10. At the time, when accused No.1 was talking with CWs.8 and 9, CW8 asked accused No.1 to get him beer bottle and accused No.1 asked CW8 to bring the beer bottles and accordingly, CW8 brought the beer bottles and all of them consumed beer. At that time, accused No.1 asked the deceased to come near him and thereafter, accused No.1 again asked CW8 to bring the beer bottles and CW8 went to bring the beer bottles and when he was bringing the beer bottles, friends of accused No.4 – the appellant herein, asked him to give

¶28

the beer bottles to him and when he refused, friends of accused No.4 abused him and thereafter, CW8 brought the

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44381 CRL.A No. 1661 of 2024

¶30

beer bottles to the place, where accused No.1 was present. He told the deceased and accused No.1 about the abuse by the friends of the appellant – accused No.4 and at that time, the deceased Sri.Sagar asked CW8, as to why he did not assault them there itself. At that time, the appellant – accused No.4 came there and accused No.1 told the deceased that the said persons are the friends of accused No.4. At that time, the deceased told accused Nos.1 and 4, as to why they are interfering in that matter and has abused them in filthy language. At that time, accused No.1 became angry and with an intention to kill the deceased, he summoned accused Nos.2 and 3 to the spot with weapons. At that time, the deceased held the shirt of accused No.1, at that time, accused No.3 abused the deceased in a raised voice. At that time, the deceased quarrelled with accused No.3 and went to assault him. At that time, accused No.2 assaulted the deceased with long chopper on his head and the deceased fell down and CWs.8 to 10 came to rescue the deceased and accused No.1 slashed the long chopper and they ran away. At that

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44381 CRL.A No. 1661 of 2024

¶32

time, the deceased got up and started running. At that time, accused Nos.3 and 4 held the deceased tightly and accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted on the face, neck and other parts of the body with long chopper and committed murder of the deceased. The deceased was belonging to the Scheduled Caste. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offence under Section 302, r/w Section 34 of IPC. The appellant – accused No.4 who came to be arrested on 29.05.2023 was in judicial custody and filed the bail application. The same came to be rejected by the impugned order, which is challenged in this appeal.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant – accused No.4 would contend that no serious overt acts are alleged against the appellant – accused No.4. The allegation against him is that he held the deceased tightly and at that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted the deceased with long chopper and caused severe injuries. He further submits that CWs.8 to 10 who are eye witnesses to the

¶34

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44381 CRL.A No. 1661 of 2024

¶35

incident have been examined as PWs.1 to 3 and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellant – accused No.4.

¶36

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader – for respondent No.1 State would contend that though CWs.8 to 10 have not supported the case of the prosecution, but, there are other prosecution witnesses who are cited in the charge sheet are yet to be examined.

¶37

If the appellant – accused No.4 is granted bail, there is a threat to the other witnesses who are yet to be examined. This appellant – accused No.4 held the deceased tightly and facilitated the other accused to assault the deceased. Earlier, this Court considering the said aspects has dismissed his appeal, challenging rejection of bail application. There are no new grounds. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶38

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:44381 CRL.A No. 1661 of 2024

¶39

Having heard the learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned order and the charge sheet material.

¶40

There is no accusation of assault by this appellant – accused No.4. The accusation against him is that he held the deceased tightly and facilitated accused Nos.1 and 2 to assault the deceased. CWs.8 to 10 are the eye witnesses to the incident. They are already examined as PWs.1 to 3 and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. As the eye witnesses are already examined and as there are no serious overt acts alleged against the appellant – accused No.4, he is entitled for grant of bail with conditions. The appellant – accused No.4 has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. In the result, the following;

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The appeal is allowed . The impugned order dated 28.08.2024 passed in Special Case No.1898/2023 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Special Judge, Bengaluru is

¶43

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44381 CRL.A No. 1661 of 2024

¶44

set-aside. Consequently, the bail application of the appellant – accused No.4 is allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.61/2023 of Kempapura Agrahara Police Station, subject to the following conditions:

¶45

(i) The appellant – accused No.4 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.

¶46

(ii) The appellant – accused No.4 shall not threaten or tamper the remaining prosecution witnesses.

¶47

(iii) The appellant – accused No.4 shall appear before the Trial Court on all the dates of hearing, unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶50

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Dhanush Kumar N @ Vale v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanush Kumar N @ Vale v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Prema Vs State of Karnataka

Senior Intelligence Officer Vs Mr. Asfaqalam Shabbir

Sri Mahendra R Vs the State of Karnataka

Kumargouda S/O Hanumantagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Prajwal. P. a. Vs State by Govindaraja Nagar P S

Shivanna Nayaka Vs State of Karnataka