Allowed

Mr Manikanta K T v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2024CRL.A/1994/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against rejection of bail in a stalking case. The court held that with the charge sheet filed and no life sentence involved, custodial interrogation was unnecessary and witness-protection concerns could be met by conditions. Appeal allowed; accused released on bail.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail-rejection order set aside; appellant ordered to be released on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions including no contact with complainant.

Mr Manikanta K T Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50591 CRL.A No. 1994 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1994 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR MANIKANTA K T S/O MR. THOTAPPA K.M. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT 136, 4^TH MAIN NEAR HONDA SHOW ROOM VIVEKANANDA CIRCLE, 2^ND STAGE KUVEMPUNAGARA MYSURU, KARNATAKA - 570 023.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI MILASH ARROL NORONHA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAL POLICE STATION VIJAYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION MYSURU CITY, KARNATAKA REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

MISS. RASHMI P. D/O MR. POOJANARASIMHAIAH M.G. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT No.7569, 2^ND PHASE 4^TH STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR MYSURU, KARNATAKA - 570 032.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:50591 CRL.A No. 1994 of 2024

¶18

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE COURT AT MYSURU IN CRIME No.46/2024 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ACCUSED ON BAIL IN CRIME No.46/2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1 HEBBAL P.S., AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 78(1)(i) AND (1)(ii) OF BNS 2023 AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set-aside the order dated 30.09.2024 passed in Crime No.46/2024 by the VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, whereunder, the bail application of the appellant – accused sought in respect of Crime No.46/2024 of Hebbal Police Station, Mysuru, registered for the offences under Sections 78(1)(i) and 78(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be rejected.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50591 CRL.A No. 1994 of 2024

¶24

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant – accused, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State. Respondent No.2, on the previous date of hearing, appeared before the Court and prayed, not to grant bail to the appellant – accused.

¶25

3. Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint against the appellant – accused wherein, it is stated that; on 25.08.2024 at about 7.30 pm., when she was proceeding on her scooter after finishing the work at Infosys Pvt.Ltd., the appellant – accused followed her in his bike bearing No.KA-55-K-7557 and on the same night, sent her email and threatened her to end his life and called her for four times on 11.08.2024, once on 12.08.2024, twice on 13.08.2024, twice on 18.08.2024, twice on 19.08.2024, four times on 20.08.2024, twice on 22.08.2024, twice on 23.08.2024, five times on 24.08.2024 and twice on 26.08.2024, but she did not receive his calls. He again made calls from different phone numbers. The appellant – accused sent a friend request through different Instagram

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50591 CRL.A No. 1994 of 2024

¶27

accounts and respondent No.2 has blocked all those accounts. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.46/2024 in Hebbal police station, Mysuru for the aforesaid offences. The appellant – accused was arrested on 10.09.2024 and he is in judicial custody. The appellant – accused has filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order.

¶28

4. Learned counsel for the appellant – accused contended that the offence alleged against the appellant – accused is stalking and the punishment for the first offence is three years and for the second offence is five years. He submits that there was love affair between the appellant – accused and respondent No.2, as they were working in Infosys Pvt.Ltd., earlier and now, the appellant – accused has left that job and now, undergoing training in ICICI Bank. He submits that the charge sheet has been filed and therefore, the appellant – accused is not required for the custodial interrogation. On these grounds, he

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:50591 CRL.A No. 1994 of 2024

¶31

prayed for allowing the appeal and for grant of bail to the appellant – accused.

¶32

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State contends that there was continuous harassment by this appellant – accused to respondent No.2 by making phone calls, following her, threatening to kill himself etc., With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the impugned order and the other materials placed on record.

¶34

The offences alleged against the appellant – accused is stalking. The punishment provided for the same is three years for the first time offence and five years for the second time offence. The charge sheet has been filed against this appellant – accused for the offences under Sections under Sections 78(1)(i) and 78(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:50591 CRL.A No. 1994 of 2024

¶36

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As the charge sheet is filed, the appellant – accused is not required for the custodial interrogation. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Apprehension of threat to respondent No.2 and the other prosecution witnesses can be met with by imposing suitable conditions. The appellant – accused has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. In the result, the following;

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The appeal is allowed . The impugned order dated 30.09.2024 passed in Crime No.46/2024 by the VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru is set-aside. Consequently, the bail application filed by the appellant – accused is allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.46/2024 of Hebbal Police

¶39

Station, Mysuru, subject to the following conditions;

¶40

(i) The appellant - accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:50591 CRL.A No. 1994 of 2024

¶43

(Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶44

(ii) The appellant – accused shall not threaten the complainant and the other prosecution witnesses.

¶45

(iii) The appellant – accused shall not contact respondent No.2 – complainant either physically or through phone or through other media, till disposal of the case registered against him.

¶46

(iv) The appellant - accused shall appear before the Trial Court on all the dates of hearing, unless exempted and co-operate for speedy disposal of the case.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶49

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Mr Manikanta K T v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Manikanta K T v. 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

Mohammad Salman Vs State by the Station House Officer

P H Shahir @ Sukru Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mahanthesha @ Mahantha Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath Vs State by Vijayapura Police

Mallikarjun S/O Ramakrishna Hadapad Vs the State of Karnataka

Yaasin @ Yaasin Sharif Vs State by Nagamangala Town Police