Criminal Appeal filed by a bail convict seeking to set aside rejection of his bail. High Court held prima facie case exists for murder charges and interconnected caste atrocities. Bail application dismissed.
Bail application of appellant accused No.2 is rejected. He is at liberty to file fresh bail application after receipt of CCTV footage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:51914 CRL.A No. 1715 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1715 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI SANDEEPA K. L. S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT No. AVADADENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI LEELADHAR H P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1. R2 SERVED. UNREPRESENTED)
NC: 2024:KHC:51914 CRL.A No. 1715 of 2024
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SCT/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.08.2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU IN SPECIAL CASE No.342/2024 AND GRANT BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN CR.No.109/2024 OF THE SURYANAGAR POLICE ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT NOW PENDING IN SPL.C.No.342/2024 OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 120(B), 109, 143, 144, 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(VA) OF SC/ST ACT BY IMPOSING ANY CONDITIONS AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant -accused No.2 praying to set aside the order dated 09.08.2024 passed in Spl.C.No.342/2024 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereunder the bail application of this appellant -accused No.2 and two other accused sought in respect of Crime No.109/2024 of Suryanagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 109, 143, 144 read with Section 149 of Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “SC and ST Act” for brevity) came to be rejected.
No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 -State. Inspite of service of notice to respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.
case of one Manoj @ Bablu who is brother of accused No.1. They were in judicial custody in the said murder case and have been released after disposal of said murder case. Accused Nos.8 and 9 disclosed to accused No.1 that deceased –Vijaykumar intends to kill accused No.1 and also abetted accused No.1 to commit murder of deceased –Vijaykumar. Accordingly, accused No.1 hatched criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 7 to commit murder of
deceased –Vijaykumar. On 25.02.2024 between 3.30 a.m to 4.00a.m. when deceased –Vijaykumar was in the house
in Marasur village, accused Nos.2 and 5 went near the house of Vijaykumar and confirmed his presence in the house and thereafter, accused Nos.3 and 5 brought Vijaykumar to road in front of water tank in Indiranagar, Marasur Village. Accused No.3 caught hold of Vijaykumar while accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted deceased – Vijaykumar with long chopper, accused No.4 also assaulted deceased –Vijaykumar with chopper and committed murder of said Vijaykumar. Accused Nos.6 and 7 stood as guard at the scene of offence at the time of incident. After investigation charge sheet has been filed against accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The appellant –accused No.2 who is in judicial custody has filed bail application with other two accused i.e. accused Nos.6 and 7 and same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.
No.2 would contend that C.W.4 who is stated to be eye witness to the incident has not identified assailants and he identified accused No.1 in the police station. Considering his statement the involvement of this the appellant – accused No.2 in the incident is doubtful. The Investigating Officer has not conducted any test identification parade. The recovery of weapons is jointly at the instance of all accused persons i.e. accused Nos.1 to 7. The alleged C.D. containing C.C.T.V. footage of the incident has not been produced to the Court and it is also not been supplied to accused persons inspite of order of the Court on application filed by the appellant –accused No.2. There is no motive for this appellant –accused No.2 and the motive is alleged against accused No.1. On these grounds, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and grant bail to the appellant –accused No.2.
Pleader for respondent No.1-State would contend that
accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted the deceased with long chopper on his head and caused injury and his death. The post mortem report indicate that 08 injuries on the dead body of the deceased and the doctor has opined that death is due to skull fracture and intracranial hemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained to the head due to sharp force.
There is recovery of weapons at the instance of this appellant –accused No.2 and other accused. Charge sheet materials show prima facie case against this appellant – accused No.2. The C.C.T.V footage contains recording of the incident. On these grounds he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
furtherance of the said conspiracy on 25.02.2024 accused persons went near the house of the deceased and brought him. Accused No.3 held the deceased -Vijaykumar, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 assaulted with long chopper and committed murder of said Vijaykumar. Cl.No.17 of the charge sheet indicates that this appellant –accused No.2 assaulted the deceased with long chopper on his head. C.W.4 is eye witness to the incident who has stated in his statement that he witnessing the incident and assault by three accused to the deceased. Even though he has not identified this appellant –accused No.2 but the investigating officer has collected C.C.T.V footage fixed to KEB Electric pole near Indiranagar bus stand on Margur main road. The said C.C.T.V footage seized under mahazar and DVR has been sent for FSL for scientific examination and report is awaited. Considering all these aspects, at this stage there is prima facie case against this appellant –accused No.2 for offences alleged against him.
NC: 2024:KHC:51914 CRL.A No. 1715 of 2024
Judge has rightly rejected bail application of this appellant –accused No.2. There are no grounds made out for setting aside the impugned order and grant bail.
Accused No.2 is at liberty to file fresh bail application
after receipt of C.D. containing C.C.T.V footage.
Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE
DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused prima facie case for murder and atrocities precludes grant of bail at this stage.
Whether the lower court correctly rejected the bail application under the SC/ST Act and IPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI SANDEEPA K. L.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
SRI PADMARAJU
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
