Allowed

Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024CRL.A/200203/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail application for accused in murder case. Court set aside impugned order dismissing bail, holding no pre-meditated murder intention and noting deceased was a thief; attracted Atrocities Act doubted. Bail granted subject to standard bonds.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissed; appellant enlarged on bail with personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/ and conditions.

Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6689 CRL.A No. 200203 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200203 OF 2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRINIVAS S/O LALAPPA IDAGAR AGE 32 YEARS OCC: CAR DRIVER RESIDENT OF HALAHALLI NOW AT PRATAP NAGAR BIDAR - 585 401.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI SANTOSH PATIL, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH NEW TOWN POLICE STATION BIDAR DIST, BIDAR - 585 401 REPTD BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH - 585 107.

¶16

KAMALAMMA W/O RAMANNA NAGURE AGE 58 YEARS OCC: LABOURER RESIDENT OF OLD NAUBAD BIDAR, DIST BIDAR - 585 401.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. ANITHA REDDY, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6689 CRL.A No. 200203 of 2024

¶21

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/SEC. 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25-06-2024 PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO. 307/2024 BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

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

¶25

Accused no.3 in Crime No.120/2024 registered by New

¶26

Town Police Station, Bidar District, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 149 IPC, is before this Court under Section 439 Cr.PC with a prayer to enlarge him on regular bail.

¶27

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned HCGP for the State. Respondent no.2 though served in the matter, has remained unrepresented before this Court.

¶28

FIR in Crime No.120/2024 was registered by New Town Police Station, Bidar District, for the aforesaid offences against the Goraknath and others on the basis of the first information dated 31.05.2024 received from Kamalamma - respondent no.2 who is the mother of deceased Santosh.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6689 CRL.A No. 200203 of 2024

¶31

4. During the course of investigation, appellant herein was

¶32

arrested on 01.06.2024 and remanded to judicial custody. Bail application filed by him before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No.307/2024 was dismissed on 25.06.2024. Thereafter, police have invoked Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, he has preferred this appeal.

¶33

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that even if the case of the prosecution is presumed to be true, the offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be made out against the appellant. Undisputedly, the deceased had entered the premises of accused no.1 for the purpose of committing theft. The other accused persons who are neighbourers of accused no.1 had all caught hold of deceased who had entered the premises of accused no.1 for the purpose of committing theft and had assaulted him and as a result of the assault, he had died. Appellant has no criminal antecedents. Major portion of the investigation is completed. Accused nos.1 & 2 as against whom similar allegations are made, have been granted regular bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.200843/2024 c/w Crl.P.

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6689 CRL.A No. 200203 of 2024

¶35

No.200865/2024 disposed of on 24.07.2024. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶36

Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the appeal, does not dispute the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

¶37

From a perusal of the first information dated 31.05.2024 itself, it is apparent that deceased Santosh along with his friends had entered the premises of accused no.1 on the intervening night of 30.05.2024 and 31.05.2024 for the purpose of committing theft. Accused nos.2 to 5 are the neighbourers of accused no.1. After accused no.1 found somebody inside his premises, he informed accused nos.2 to 5 who are his neighbourers about the same and all of them came to the house of accused no.1 with sticks, and seeing them, the

¶38

other persons who were along with deceased Santosh ran away. The accused persons allegedly caught hold of Santosh and assaulted him with sticks and as a result of the said assault, he suffered grievous injuries. Subsequently, the accused persons themselves handed over injured Santosh to

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6689 CRL.A No. 200203 of 2024

¶40

the police who was admitted to the hospital, but died in the hospital while undergoing treatment.

¶41

From the material available on record, it is very clear that the incident in question had taken place after Santosh and his friends had entered into the premises of accused no.1 for the purpose of committing theft. It cannot be said that the accused persons had any intention to commit the murder of Santosh. They did not even have any motive to commit the crime. Deceased was a stranger. Therefore, it becomes doubtful the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, gets attracted in this case. Accused no.3 is in custody from 01.06.2024. Major portion of the investigation is completed. Accused nos.1 & 2 as against whom similar allegations are made, have been granted regular bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.200843/2024 c/w Crl.P.no.200865/2024 disposed of on 24.07.2024. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the appellant is required to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following order:

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6689 CRL.A No. 200203 of 2024

¶44

The appeal is allowed. The order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Crl. Misc. No.307/2024, is set aside, in so far as the appellant is concerned. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.120/2024 registered by New Town Police Station, Bidar District, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 149 IPC, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, subject to the following conditions:

¶45

a) 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;

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

d) Appellant shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6689 CRL.A No. 200203 of 2024

¶51

e) 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.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

(S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶54

Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivas 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abbu Moulana @ Abubakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Narendra Kumar R Nari Alias Narendra Kumar Alias Narendra Gopal S/O Suresha Vs the State of Karnataka

Arbaz S/O Irfan Hanchinal Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Daresh Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Naseema Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jamilahmad Vs the State of Karnataka