Appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against rejection of anticipatory bail to a 17-year-old accused No. 10 in a murder and caste atrocity case. The High Court found prima facie material showing his participation in the assault on the deceased and dismissed the appeal.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1739 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI HEMANTH M REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. JYOTHI S/O MAHESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE NARASAPURA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 563 133.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI NANJUNDA GOWDA M R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1 SRI M C VENKATARANGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.No.431/2024 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR AND 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
praying to set aside the order dated 08.07.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 431/2024 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, whereunder the anticipatory bail petition of appellant – accused No. 10 sought in respect of crime No. 98/2024 of Vemagal Police Station registered for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the SC ST (POA) Act) came to be rejected.
CW1 to Ashwatha Katte of Ramasandra village; accused No.2 assaulted C.W. 1 with club on his head, accused No.4 assaulted with stick of Neelagiri Tree on C.W. 1 on his waist; accused No.6 assaulted C.W. 1 with club on his left shoulder. At that time, when C.W. 2 came to rescue C.W. 1, accused No. 3 assaulted C.W. 2 with club on his head and accused No.5 assaulted C.W. 2 with club on his left elbow. At that time, when C.W. 3 and 4 came to rescue C.W. 1, accused Nos. 14 and 15 assaulted C.W. 4 with hands and accused No.16 assaulted C.W. 3 with hands. Accused No. 2 dragged C.W. 1 holding his shirt and torn it
and caused simple injuries to C.W. 1 and 2. In the meantime, the deceased Sri. Ambarish came there, asked accused No.1 as to why they are assaulting C.W. 1 - Sri. Praveen. At that time, accused No.1 asked him as to whether he is supporting C.W. 1 - Sri.Praveen and started quarrelling with him. Accused No. 1 assaulted the deceased Sri. Ambarish with club on his knee and the deceased Sri. Ambarish in order to escape, ran away near the Neelagiri garden of Sri. Kenchappa and all the accused
persons chased him and started quarrelling with him. At that time, accused No. 13 assaulted the deceased Sri. Ambarish with machete on the right side of his head and caused severe injury; accused No. 1 assaulted him with the same machete which accused No. 13 was holding on the middle portion of his head and caused bleeding injury; accused No.7 assaulted the deceased Sri. Ambarish with iron pipe on his knee; accused No. 8 assaulted the deceased Sri. Ambarish with club on his right hand and caused simple injury; accused No. 9 assaulted the deceased Sri. Ambarish with fist on his chest; accused Nos. 4 and 15 kicked the deceased Sri. Ambarish with their legs and accused No. 10 assaulted the deceased Sri. Ambarish with his hands and caused simple injury; accused No. 2 assaulted the deceased Sri. Ambarish on his left eye with his fist; accused Nos. 11 and 12 assaulted the deceased Sri. Ambarish with iron rod and iron pipe on his legs and the deceased Sri. Ambarish succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Charge sheet has been filed against accused persons for the offences under Sections 143, 147,
148, 323, 24, 307, 302, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC ST (POA) Act.
of 99 mtrs. Even though there are eye witnesses to the incident, they have not chosen to intimate the same to the Police and the injured eye witness has filed the complaint on the next date of the incident. The appellant - accused No. 10 is a student and if he is arrested, it will affect his educational career. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant – accused No. 10.
8. The accusation against appellant - accused No.
10 is that he assaulted the deceased Sri. Ambarish with hands and caused simple injury. Appellant - accused No. 10 was a member of unlawful assembly who have assaulted the deceased – Sri. Ambarish with deadly weapon and caused his death. Not only appellant - accused No. 10 but his father (accused No. 3) and brother (accused No. 8) are also involved in this case who are stated to have assaulted the deceased. The postmortem report indicate that deceased had sustained 32 injuries and the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination has opined that he died due to the injuries to the head. C.W.1 to C.W.4 are injured and eye witnesses to the incident of assault by accused Nos. 2 to 6. C.W. 8 to C.W.10 are eye witnesses to the incident where the accused persons assaulted the deceased – Sri. Ambarish. Appellant - accused No. 10 along with father (accused No. 3) and brother (accused No. 8) has assaulted the deceased – Sri. Ambarish.
NC: 2024:KHC:50108 CRL.A No. 1739 of 2024
9. Learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the
anticipatory bail petition of appellant - accused No. 10, in the impugned order has observed as under:
“16. The second thing to be considered in this petition is that, whether a child in conflict with law who has been alleged to the commission of murder has a right to be released on bail. When the entire facts and circumstances of the prosecution case and arguments of learned PP is taken into consideration it is observed that this child in conflict with law has committed an offence of murder joining with the other co-accused. When such being the case, if the facts of the case is read along with proviso of Section 12 of JJ Act, it is very clear that the present act alleged against the child in conflict with law is such an act if bail granted it would defeat the ends of justice. The child in conflict with law has joined hands with other accused in commission of heinous offence. Moreover, while granting bail, the vital aspects of the case must be considered. In the present case on hand the nature of the crime, the crime history i.e., the facts which lead to the commission of offence shows the grave and heinous nature of the offence. Therefore, this court cannot loose site of the serious nature of accusation against the accused. At present there are prima facie case pointing towards the guilt of the child in conflict with
NC: 2024:KHC:50108 CRL.A No. 1739 of 2024
law. Hence, letting the child in conflict with law on bail will create chaos in the society. It will shake the faith of public in the judiciary. It will send a wrong signal to the society and it will increase the crime in the society. It is significant to rely on the judgment of Patna High Court in Rev.P.613/2023 dated 4.04.2024 wherein it is held as follows:
The CCLs were involved in committing heinous offence;
and
(ii) Secondly the Social Investigation Report filed by the Probation Officers state that the CICLS were grown up in their respective families where their parents failed to control them from mixing up with the antisocial and criminals of the locality. There is every chance that if they are released on bail, they will again befriend with the criminals. Parents and natural guardians of the petitioners will not be able to control them and their release is likely to bring them into the association with the known criminals and they expose them to moral physical and psychological danger, release would defeat the ends of justice.
17. In the present petition also, the parents of the child in conflict with law have failed to control
their child from involving in a heinous offence like murder. Now, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, taking advantage of the same, there are every chances that he may again join the association with the known criminals and he may expose to moral, physical and psychological danger. Hence, this court is of the humble opinion that it is not fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner child in conflict with law and answer point No.1 in the Negative.”
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE
LRS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a child in conflict with law accused of murder under the SC/ST (POA) Act despite the bar in the proviso to Section 12 of the JJ Act.
Whether the Sessions Judge's rejection of the anticipatory bail petition warranted interference.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Hemanth M (represented by natural guardian mother Smt. Jyothi)
The State of Karnataka by Vemgal Police Station, Kolar District
Sri Praveen R
Shivashankar Amannavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
