Allowed

Bharath @ Bharath Kumar v. State by

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024CRL.A/1816/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14A(2) SC/ST Act against rejection of bail of accused No.1 in a kidnapping and murder case based on circumstantial evidence. Court noted postmortem could not fix cause of death, no eye witnesses, and parity with bailed co-accused, and allowed the appeal granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection of bail set aside; accused No.1 released on bail in Crime No.304/2023 on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety, subject to conditions.

Bharath @ Bharath Kumar Vs State by — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:44071 CRL.A No. 1816 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1816 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BHARATH @ BHARATH KUMAR S/O LATE CHANDIAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT BILALA VILLAGE CHAMBARASANAPALLI POST SULIGIRI TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI TAMILNADU – 635 001.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI T PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMAVATHY GANGABYRAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KGF SUB-DIVISION, BANGARPET POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDINGS BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

2. KRISHNAPPA

¶14

S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS BELONGING TO SCHEDULED CASTE RETIRED EMPLOYEE RESIDING AT No.4631/18 SRINIVAS GOWDA LAYOUT

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:44071 CRL.A No. 1816 of 2024

¶17

BANGARPET TOWN, K. G. F KARNATAKA – 563 114.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI A VENKAT SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R-1 SMT. K PRIYANKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶20

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2024 PASSED BY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC I (POCSO) KOLAR C/C II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR IN SPECIAL S.C.No.2/2024 REJECTING THE BAIL PETITION OF APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.1 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO GRANT THE BAIL TO HIM IN SPL.S.C.No.2/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 365, 302, 201, 506, 114 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND ETC,

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellant – accused No.1 praying to set-aside the order dated 26.03.2024 passed in Spl.S.C. IPC and SC/ST No.02/2024 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, whereunder, the bail petition of this appellant – accused No.1 sought in respect of Crime No.304/2023 of Bangarpet Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143,

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44071 CRL.A No. 1816 of 2024

¶26

147, 148, 120B, 365, 302, 201, 506, 114 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be rejected .

¶27

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant – accused No.1, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶28

Case of the prosecution in brief is that; CW4 – Smt.Asha was the wife of accused No.1 – Sri.Bharath @ Bharath Kumar. Due to family dispute on 18.07.2023 CW4 – Smt.Asha left accused No.1 and joined deceased Sri.Hemanth Kumar. On 21.07.2023, accused No.7 filed a missing complaint regarding missing of CW4 – Smt.Asha, which was registered in Crime No.66/2023 of Boodikote police station. Thereafter, CW4 – Smt.Asha was traced and on enquiry, she refused to lead marital life with accused No.1 and she went along with deceased Sri.Hemanth Kumar. Accused No.1 felt insulted and decided to take

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44071 CRL.A No. 1816 of 2024

¶30

revenge by killing Sri.Hemanth Kumar, with whom CW4 –Smt.Asha was living. Accordingly, on 14.10.2023, accused Nos.1 to 8 hatched a plan and decided to kill Sri.Hemanth Kumar. Accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 came in Innova car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MR-9920 to the house of accused No.7. On 15.10.2023, when the deceased Sri.Hemanth Kumar and CW3 – Sri.Raghu came out of V.V.V.Bar in Kempegowda Circle, Bangarpet by consuming liquor, accused Nos.4 and 5 forcibly pushed the deceased into the car and threatened CW3 stating not to disclose the same to anybody. Accused Nos.1 to 6 took the deceased near the land of Narayanaswamy of Kambiganahalli in Hosakote taluk and hit the deceased by clubs and killed him. After killing the deceased, they transported the dead body to Manchenahalli in the outskirts of Yalahanka and thrown the dead body near the compound. Accused Nos.3 to 6 have made the phone calls through V.O.I.P (voice over internet protocol) by using a dongle and destroyed the same and caused disappearance of the evidence. Accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 belongs to upper

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44071 CRL.A No. 1816 of 2024

¶32

caste and they killed the deceased Sri.Hemanth Kumar knowing that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. The police arrested accused Nos.1 to 6 and 8 and produced before the Court and they were remanded to judicial custody. The investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons.

¶33

The appellant – accused No.1 came to be arrested on 26.10.2023 and he is in judicial custody. The appellant – accused No.1 along with the other accused filed bail petition and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order, which is challenged in this appeal.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant – accused No.1 would contend that;

¶35

(i) The entire case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. CW3 – brother of the deceased who is stated to be an eye witness has kept quite regarding kidnap from 15.10.2023 till 25.10.2023. Father of the deceased had

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44071 CRL.A No. 1816 of 2024

¶37

filed a missing complaint on 17.10.2023. Even CW3 had not intimated about the alleged kidnap of the deceased to his father. Therefore, CW3 – brother of the deceased witnessing the alleged incident is doubtful. He further submits that in the postmortem report, the final opinion of the death is kept pending till receipt of the chemical analysis report. The doctor, after receipt of chemical analysis report has given his final report, wherein he has stated that no opinion as to the cause of death can be furnished as the body was highly decomposed, no demonstrable ante-mortem external / internal injuries were seen during the postmortem examination, F.S.L report is negative for any poisons.

¶38

(ii) Accused No.2, 4, 5 and 6 have been granted bail by this Court and accused Nos.6, 7 and 8 have been granted bail by the Sessions Court. Therefore, the appellant – accused No.1 is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. Without considering these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order

¶39

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:44071 CRL.A No. 1816 of 2024

¶40

which requires interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶41

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State contends that the appellant – accused No.1 had motive to kill the deceased. The charge sheet material show prima facie case against the appellant – accused No.1 and the other accused for the offences alleged against them. Considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of this appellant – accused No.1. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶42

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that there is a strong motive for the appellant – accused No.1 to commit murder of the deceased as he had married wife of the appellant – accused No.1. The alleged murder is pre-planned murder after kidnapping the deceased in a car. The accused persons threw the dead body near Yelahanka so that nobody can witness the body. The charge sheet papers show prima facie case against this

¶43

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44071 CRL.A No. 1816 of 2024

¶44

appellant – accused No.1 and the other accused for the offences alleged against them. If the appellant – accused No.1 is granted bail, there are chances of he threatening the prosecution witnesses. On these grounds, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶45

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

¶46

As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased Sri.Hemanth Kumar has been kidnapped by accused Nos.4 and 5 on 15.10.2023. The dead body of the deceased was found on 21.10.2023 and father of the deceased had filed the missing complaint on 17.10.2023. The postmortem has been conducted on an unknown dead body and no injuries were found in the postmortem report. The doctor who has conducted the postmortem examination, in his final opinion has stated that he could not give opinion as to the cause of death, as the dead body was highly decomposed, no demonstrable ante-mortem external /

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:44071 CRL.A No. 1816 of 2024

¶49

internal injuries were seen during the postmortem examination and the F.S.L report is negative for any poisons.

¶50

Even though CW3 – brother of the deceased is an eye witness to the incident, he has not intimated to his father – CW1 regarding the same. Father of the deceased had filed the missing complaint on 17.10.2023. There are no eye witnesses to the incident of assault on the deceased. The case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has not proved each of the circumstances to prove the guilt of the deceased. As the charge sheet is filed, the appellant – accused No.1 is not required for the custodial interrogation. Accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 who are similarly placed to that of accused No.1 have been granted bail by this Court. Appellant Nos.3, 7 and 8 have been granted bail by the Sessions Court. Therefore, the appellant – accused No.1 is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The appellant – accused No.1 has made out

¶51

10 -

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:44071 CRL.A No. 1816 of 2024

¶53

grounds for setting-aside the impugned order and grant of bail. In the result, the following;

¶54

ORDER

¶55

The appeal is allowed . The impugned order dated 26.03.2024 passed in Spl.S.C. IPC and SC/ST No.02/2024 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar is set-aside, sofar as this appellant – accused No.1 is concerned. The bail application of this appellant – accused No.1 stands allowed. The appellant – accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.304/2023 of Bangarpet Police Station pending in Spl.S.C. IPC and SC/ST No.02/2024 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, subject to the following conditions:

¶56

(i) The appellant – accused No.1 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.

¶57

(ii) The appellant – accused No.1 shall not threaten the complainant and the other prosecution witnesses.

¶58

11 -

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC:44071 CRL.A No. 1816 of 2024

¶60

(iii) The appellant – accused No.1 shall appear before the Trial Court on all the dates of hearing, unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶61

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶62

GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Bharath @ Bharath Kumar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharath @ Bharath Kumar v. State 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

Mr. Muzammil Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Kiran @ Beggar Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Arif Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Prema Vs State of Karnataka

Senior Intelligence Officer Vs Mr. Asfaqalam Shabbir

Sri Mahendra R Vs the State of Karnataka