Allowed

Rajesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2024CRL.A/2056/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.4 in a murder case under Sections 302, 201, 109 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST (POA) Act sought bail after the Sessions Court rejected his petition. The High Court allowed the appeal on parity with released co-accused, absence of overt acts against him, circumstantial evidence, and no need for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; bail granted on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety, subject to attendance, non-involvement and non-tampering conditions.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49058 CRL.A No. 2056 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2056 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJESH S/O NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT KALLIPALYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 132.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT. SUSHMA INDI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KORATAGERE POLICE KORTAGERE TALUK REP. BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

HANUMANTHARAYA S/O LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O DURGANAHALLI VILLAGE DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL – 561 204.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:49058 CRL.A No. 2056 of 2024

¶19

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 06.07.2024 IN CRL.MISC.No.996/2024 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.4 ON BAIL IN CR.No.297/2022 REGISTERED BY THE KORATAGERE P.S., FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 201 OF IPC, PENDING IN SPL.C.No.262/2023 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 201, 109 R/W 34 OF IPC, SEC.3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by accused No.4 praying to set

¶24

aside the order dated 06.07.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.996/2024 by III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, whereunder the bail petition filed by the appellant/accused No.4 in Crime No.297/2022 of Koratagere Police Station, now pending in Spl.Case No.262/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, came to be rejected.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49058 CRL.A No. 2056 of 2024

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

¶27

learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 – State.

¶28

Inspite of service of notice to respondent No.2, he remained absent and unrepresented.

¶29

As per charge sheet, case of the prosecution is that accused No.5 - wife of the deceased Sri.Suresh had an illicit relationship with accused No.1. As a result of that there was mis-understanding between the deceased with accused No.5. Due to ill treatment by the deceased, accused No.5 had been to her relative’s house who is none other than accused No.6 – Smt.Channamma and started residing in Nayakara Pete village. In that house also, the deceased Sri.Suresh picked up quarrel with accused No.5. Due to ill treatment by the deceased Sri.Suresh, both accused Nos.5 and 6 informed accused No.1 to commit the murder of Sri.Suresh, agreeing to pay him Rs.20,000/-. At the instigation of accused No.1, on 28.11.2022, accused Nos.2 to 4 received a sum of Rs.5,000/- from accused No.5. On the same day, at about 4.30 pm., accused No.1

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49058 CRL.A No. 2056 of 2024

¶31

in his Auto along with accused No.2 had been to Tubugere village and took up the deceased Sri.Suresh in his Auto, then went to bye-pass road on Madhugiri at 9.40 pm. By that time, accused Nos.3 and 4 came there on their two wheeler. All of them had alcohol at Madhugiri Wines and all of them along with the deceased Sri.Suresh had been

¶32

to the vacant place belonging to one Jodidar Rajanna. Accused Nos.1 to 4 made the deceased Sri.Suresh to sleep in the Auto and also pulled his head out side the Auto. Immediately, accused No.2 kicked with leg on his face and accused No.3 squeezed the neck of the deceased Sri.Suresh with an intention to commit his murder. After death of the deceased Sri.Suresh, accused Nos.1 to 3 shifted the dead body of the deceased to the land belonging to Sri.Krishnamurthy (CW-8) at Basavanahalli village and cremated the dead body in that land. It is the further case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 4 after committing the murder of Sri.Suresh, took the dead body to the house of accused No.5 and shown the dead body to her.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49058 CRL.A No. 2056 of 2024

¶34

The appellant/accused No.4 who has been arrested on 03.12.2022 and who is in judicial custody, filed bail petition and the same came to be rejected, by the impugned order.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.4 would contend that the accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are the assailants, have been granted bail by this Court and therefore, the appellant/accused No.4 is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The said accused No.4, as per charge sheet, was present on the spot at the time of the incident, but, no overtact is alleged against him.

¶36

She further submits that there are no witnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. On these grounds, she prayed for allowing the appeal and grant of bail to the appellant/accused No.4.

¶37

Learned HCGP would contend that the appellant/ accused No.4 at the time of the offence was present at the spot and thereafter he assisted the other accused in taking

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:49058 CRL.A No. 2056 of 2024

¶39

dead-body to the house of accused No.5 and in burying of the dead-body. The charge sheet shows prima facie case against the appellant/accused No.4. Based upon these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶40

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP, the Court has perused the impugned order and the charge sheet material.

¶41

The accused No.2, who alleged to have kicked on the face of the deceased Suresh and accused No.3 who is alleged to have squeezed the neck of the deceased Suresh have been granted bail by this Court in Crl.Appeal Nos. 1191/2023 and 2095/2023. The appellant/accused No.4, as per the charge sheet was present at the time of the incident but no overtact is alleged against him. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstance evidence. As the charge sheet is filed, appellant/accused No.4 is not required for custodial interrogation. Without considering these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order, which requires interference by this Court.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:49058 CRL.A No. 2056 of 2024

¶44

The appellant has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and the grant of bail. In the result, the following order:

¶45

(i) The appeal filed by the appellant/accused No.4 is allowed.

¶46

(ii) The impugned order dated 06.07.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.996/2024 by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru is set aside.

¶47

(iii) The appellant/accused No.4 is granted bail in Crime No.297/2022 of Koratagere Police Station, pending in Spl.Case No.262/2022, subject to the following conditions:

¶48

(a) The appellant/accused No.4 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:49058 CRL.A No. 2056 of 2024

¶51

(b) The appellant/accused No.4 shall attend the court

¶52

on all dates of hearing, unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶53

¶54

commission of any similar offence.

¶55

(d) The appellant/accused No.4 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶56

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶57

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Rajesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Sri Rajesh K S Vs State by Hennur Police Station,Bangalore

Smt Kavya E N Vs Sri Srinivasa R

S.M.Narayana Swamy Vs M.S.Shankaranarayana

Shankar M Vs State of Karnataka

State by K.R. Traffic Police Vs Surendra @ Suresh

Shri Manjunatha Reddy @ Manju Vs State of Karnataka