Allowed

Sonnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2024CRL.A/1912/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14(A)(2) SC/ST Act against rejection of regular bail in a murder case. Accused No.1 was alleged only of conspiring and paying an advance for a supari killing; he was not present at the spot. Charge sheet filed, so custodial interrogation unnecessary. Appeal allowed; bail granted with bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant granted bail on personal bond Rs.1,00,000 with one surety, conditions against witness tampering and requiring court appearance.

Sonnappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:46053 CRL.A No. 1912 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1912 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SONNAPPA S/O ADEPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT GERAHALLI VILLAGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 114.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI NARAYANASWAMY K N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HOSAKOTE POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶15

CHANNAKESHAVA S/O NAGARJU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT GANGAPURA VILLAGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK – 562 114.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

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

¶18

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:46053 CRL.A No. 1912 of 2024

¶21

14.10.2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU AND ENLARGE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL IN CR.No.197/2024 OF HOSAKOTE POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 307, 109, 114, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST(POA) ACT AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the appellant – accused No.1

¶26

praying to set-aside the order dated 14.10.2024 passed in Crime No.197/2024 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereunder, the bail application filed by the appellant – accused No.1 in respect of Crime No.197/2024 of Hosakote Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) , came to be rejected.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the appellant – accused No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46053 CRL.A No. 1912 of 2024

¶29

respondent No.1 – State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has remained absent and unrepresented.

¶30

Case of the prosecution as per Column No.17 of the charge sheet is that there was rivalry in the vegetable business between accused No.1 and the deceased Sri.Naveen Kumar and in that regard there were quarrels between them. The appellant – accused No.1 contacted accused No.2 and told him that a lesson has to be taught to the deceased Sri.Naveen Kumar. Accused No.2 has contacted accused Nos.3 and 4 and all accused Nos.1 to 4 have held talks to finish the deceased Sri.Naveen Kumar and in that regard, accused No.1 agreed to spend a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. In furtherance of the same, accused No.1

¶31

had paid Rs.50,000/- to accused No.2 as advance. In furtherance of the conspiracy, accused Nos.3 to 6 agreed to kill the said deceased Sri.Naveen Kumar. On 15.06.2024, when the deceased was returning from the market, accused Nos.3 to 6 in a Maruthi Zen Car bearing No.KA-04-Z-8991 stopped their car in front of the car of

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:46053 CRL.A No. 1912 of 2024

¶34

the deceased and the deceased Sri.Naveen Kumar started quarrelling with them. At that time, accused Nos.3 to 6 took iron rods kept in their car and all the four accused assaulted the deceased on his head and chest, and the deceased succumbed to injuries on the spot. At that time, they also threatened CW1 who was with the deceased. Charge sheet has been filed against the appellant – accused No.1 and the other accused for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 109, 114, 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant – accused No.1 came to be arrested on 07.07.2024 and he is in judicial custody. The appellant - accused No.1 filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.1 would contend that there is no overt act alleged against the appellant - accused No.1, except conspiracy. There is no material to establish the conspiracy with accused No.2

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46053 CRL.A No. 1912 of 2024

¶37

and the other accused. There is recovery of mobile phone of this appellant - accused No.1. The appellant - accused No.1 was not on the spot at the time of the incident. As the charge sheet is filed, the appellant - accused No.1 is not required for the custodial interrogation. On these grounds, he prayed for setting-aside the impugned order and grant bail to the appellant - accused No.1.

¶38

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State would contend that this appellant – accused No.1 has conspired with the other accused and agreed to give supari of Rs.10,00,000/- for committing murder of the deceased Sri.Naveen Kumar. CW1 is the eye witness to the incident who has seen four unknown persons assaulting the deceased and causing his death and he has identified those persons in the police station when they were shown to him. Charge sheet has been filed against the appellant – accused No.1 for conspiring with accused No.2. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:46053 CRL.A No. 1912 of 2024

¶41

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

¶42

The accusation against the appellant – accused No.1 is that he has conspired with accused Nos.2 to 4 to kill the deceased and agreed to give supari of Rs.10,00,000/- and gave Rs.50,000/- as advance to accused No.2. There is no accusation of the appellant – accused No.1 being present on the spot at the time of the incident. The accusation is against accused Nos.3 to 6 for assaulting the deceased with the iron rods and committing his murder. As the charge sheet is filed, the appellant – accused No.1 is not required for the custodial interrogation. Without considering these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant – accused No.1. The appellant – accused No.1 has made out grounds for setting-aside the impugned order and grant of bail. In the result, the following;

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:46053 CRL.A No. 1912 of 2024

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The appeal is allowed . The impugned order dated 14.10.2024 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is set-aside and the appellant – accused No.1 is granted bail in Crime No.197/2024 of Hosakote Police Station, subject to the following conditions;

¶46

(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.

¶47

(ii) The appellant – accused No.1 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶48

(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.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶51

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sonnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonnappa 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

Sri. Nagarajappa @ Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Savin S/O Siddappa Daddi Vs State of Karnataka

Nataraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Mahesh Kishan Motewar Vs State by

Smt Sumathi T R Vs Mr M Lakshman

V Muniraju, Vs State by Udupi Town Police Station