Allowed

Sri Suman Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2024CRL.A/1705/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act against rejection of bail in a murder case. Most witnesses including the last-seen witness turned hostile; only official witnesses remained. Co-accused were already granted bail and the appellant had been in custody over three years. The High Court allowed the appeal and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant/accused No.1 directed to be released on bail in Spl.C.No.824/2021 on personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two like sureties, subject to conditions.

Sri Suman Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:45382 CRL.A No. 1705 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1705 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SUMAN KUMAR, S/O NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/A NO. 19, 1ST MAIN ROAD, KRISHNAYYANAPALYA, INDIRANAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 039.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SUDHINDRA B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY - 560 016. REPRESENTED BY HCGP, OFFICE AT HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

SMT. SUBBAMMA, W/O LATE SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE, KRISHNAIAHNA PALYA, BYAPPANAHALLI, INDIRANAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 039.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. M.M. WAHEEDA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:45382 CRL.A No. 1705 of 2024

¶20

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST POA ACT PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2024 PASSED IN SPL.C.C.NO.824/2021 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.123/2021 DATED 29.03.2021 REGISTERED AT RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 120(B), 302 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC AND SEC.25 OF ARMS ACT AND SEC.3(2)(V)(va) OF SC/ST ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-71) REJECTING THE RELIEF OF BAIL TO THE APPELLANT.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This Successive appeal is filed by the appellant / accused No.1 under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (referred as 'the Act' for short), for setting aside the order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru in Spl.C.No.824/2021 and to grant bail to the appellant / accused No.1.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:45382 CRL.A No. 1705 of 2024

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for appellant, Learned

¶28

High Court Government Pleader for the State and respondent No.2 is served but unrepresented.

¶29

The case of the prosecution is that appellant and others are said to be arrested by the police on 09.04.2022 on the allegation that appellant and others are said to be committed murder of deceased in the intervening night of 28/29.03.2021, when he was standing near an arch and taking liquor.

¶30

Subsequently a complaint came to be filed by the mother of the deceased and the bail application of the appellant came to be rejected by the Trial Court. Accordingly, he has approached this Court by filing an appeal in Crl.A.No.1870/2022. However, the said appeal was dismissed for non prosecution vide order dated 26.07.2023 due to non appearance of the appellant's counsel. Once again appellant is before this Court.

¶31

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that 24 witnesses are already examined. Most of the witnesses were turned hostile except the mother of the deceased. Therefore, he has contended that other accused were also granted bail

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45382 CRL.A No. 1705 of 2024

¶33

except this appellant. Hence, prayed for releasing the appellant by allowing the appeal.

¶34

Per contra learned High Court Government Pleader

¶35

objected the same.

¶36

Having heard the arguments, perused the records. The bail application of this appellant came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. However, a Co-ordinate Bench granted bail to the accused Nos.5 to 7 on 26.07.2022 in Crl.A.No.839/2022.

¶37

The allegation against accused Nos.1 to 4 is that they have committed the murder under the guidance of accused Nos.5 to 7, who are said to be given suphari to them. Now except PW.1, i.e., the mother of the deceased others have turned hostile; especially PW.2, who was the last seen witness turned hostile and also PW.4, who is said to be the witness, to whom the accused No.1 is said to be informed that he has committed the murder, even that witness also turned hostile and most of the witnesses turned hostile. Except the examination of the official witnesses, there is nothing left over for examination by the Trial Court. The co-accused persons already granted bail and apart from that the petitioner is in custody for more than 3 years. Keeping the appellant in

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45382 CRL.A No. 1705 of 2024

¶39

custody will not serve any purpose and if bail is granted, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case. Instead, the apprehension of the prosecution can be safeguarded by imposing certain stringent conditions.

¶40

Hence, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The appeal is allowed . The Trial Court is hereby directed to release the appellant / accused No.1 on bail, in Spl.C.No.824/2021 arising out of Crime No.123/2021 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, subject to the following conditions:

¶43

(i) The appellant shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only)

¶44

with two sureties for the likesum to the

¶45

satisfaction of the jurisdictional District Court;

¶46

(ii) He shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:45382 CRL.A No. 1705 of 2024

¶49

(iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;

¶50

(iv) He shall take the Trial without causing any

¶51

further delay.

¶52

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶53

LDC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Sri Suman Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Suman Kumar 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

Mare Gowda S Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Khader Tansif @ Tansi Vs State of Karnataka

Vikram Gudaloor Vs Padmini Balchander

Mr. Abdulrahman Vs Sri. Ishtiyaq Ahmed

Sri Mayilvaganan @ P Babu Vs Smt P v Sheela Gupta

Smt Leelavathi Vs Sri T S Ravinandana