Allowed

Anwar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024CRL.A/200196/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the High Court set aside the Sessions Court order rejecting bail. Granting regular bail to the appellant charged with murder and assault, subject to personal bond and restrictions on tampering and jurisdictional breach.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 20.11.2023 rejecting bail; enlarged the appellant on bail subject to a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties and specific conditions including not leaving the jurisdiction.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6994 CRL.A No. 200196 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200196 OF 2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

ANWAR S/O RAJESAB NADAF AGE 27 YEARS OCC: COOLIE R/O DEVAR NAVADAGI TQ ALMEL AND DIST VIJAYAPUR.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI MOINAKHTAR NADAF, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI ALMEL P.S DIST VIJAYAPURA REP BY THE ADDL SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH - 585 107.

¶15

Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

RESHMA

¶17

W/O MALAPPA METRI AGE 32 YEARS R/O DEVAR NAVADAGI TQ ALMEL DIST VIJAYAPURA - 586 209.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. ANITHA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR -1;

¶20

R-2 IS SERVED)

¶21

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/SEC. 14-A OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20-11-2023 IN CRIMINAL MISC NO. 1651/2023 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST AND SESSION AND SPECIAL JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THE HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT THE REGULAR BAIL TO THE

¶22

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6994 CRL.A No. 200196 of 2024

¶23

APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 IN ALMEL P.S CRIME NO. 82/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SE 302, 504 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST PA NEW ACT 2015, BY IMPOSING ANY CONDITIONS THAT THIS HONOURABLE DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶27

Accused No.3 is before this Court in this criminal appeal filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions and Special Judge, Vijayapura, in Crl.Misc.No.1651/2023 and enlarge him on bail in Crime No.82/2023 registered by Almel Police Station, Vijayapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2, who is

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6994 CRL.A No. 200196 of 2024

¶31

served in the matter has remained unrepresented before this Court.

¶32

FIR in Crime No.82/2023 was registered by Almel Police Station, Vijayapur, initially for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015, against Mallu S/o Kalyani Janiwar and two others on the basis of the first information dated 11.07.2023 received from respondent No.2 herein, who is the wife of deceased Maalappa Metri. During the course of investigation, appellant was arrested on 14.07.2023 and remanded to judicial custody. Investigation in the case is complete and charge sheet has been filed. In the charge sheet, appellant is arraigned as accused No.3. His bail application filed before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.1651/2023 was rejected on 20.11.2023. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that accused Nos.1 and 2 as against whom similar allegations are found in the charge sheet have been granted regular bail by this Court in Crl.A.No.200159/2024 and Crl.A.No.200064/2024. He submits that appellant, who has no criminal antecedents is in

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6994 CRL.A No. 200196 of 2024

¶36

custody from 14.07.2023. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶37

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the prayer made in the appeal.

¶38

In the present case CW.6 is the alleged eyewitness to the incident in question. This Court while granting regular bail to accused No.2 in Crl.A.No.200064/2024, in paragraph No.6 has observed as follows :-

¶39

“CW-6 is the alleged eye witnesses to the incident in question. In the statement of CW-6 that was recorded on 11.07.2023, he has alleged that accused No.1 Mallu had assaulted Mallappa Metri with a sickle, which is used for harvesting sugar case and other 2 persons, who were present along with accused No.1 had assaulted Mallappa Metri with a stone on his head and with a knife on his body. Further statement of CW-6 Akash was recorded on 14.07.2023. During the course of his further statement he has stated that he came to know from the investigating officer that accused No.1 Mallu had assaulted deceased with a knife, accused No.2 had assaulted the deceased with an axe and accessed No.3 had assaulted deceased with a stone. The

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6994 CRL.A No. 200196 of 2024

¶42

statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by jurisdictional Magistrate on 31.07.2023. In the said statement CW-6 has once again changed his version. Therefore, a serious doubt arises with regard to the correctness of the statement and allegations made by CW-6.”

¶43

The allegation in the charge sheet is that all the accused persons have assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons. As per the charge sheet, accused No.1 had assaulted the deceased with a knife. Accused No.2 has assaulted deceased with an axe and accused No.3 had assaulted deceased with stone. Considering the discrepancies in the statement of alleged eye witness CW6 and also taking into consideration that prosecution had failed to collect the relevant documents from the competent authority with regard to cause of death of deceased, accused Nos.1 and 2 have been granted regular bail by this Court in Crl.A.No.200159/2024 and Crl.A.No.200064/2024. The allegation as against appellant is similar to accused Nos.1 and 2, who have been granted regular bail by this Court. Undisputedly, appellant has no other criminal antecedents. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6994 CRL.A No. 200196 of 2024

¶46

opinion that his prayer for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶47

The appeal is allowed. The order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions and Special Judge, Vijayapura, in Crl.Misc.No.1651/2023 is hereby set-aside. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail, in Crime No.82/2023 registered by Almel Police Station, Vijayapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015, subject to the following conditions:

¶48

a) The appellant shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶49

b) The appellant shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶50

c) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6994 CRL.A No. 200196 of 2024

¶53

d) The appellant shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶54

e) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶55

SD/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶56

Anwar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwar 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

Olekara Kumara Alias Kumara Vs State of Karnataka

Sanjay Virupakshi Bhakare Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunil Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkatarao Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dhanraj Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Devappa Veerappa Malasamudra (Name as Per Fir) Vs the State of Karnataka