Allowed

Chennakeshava Murthy Gowda v. State by the Station House Officer

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2024CRL.A/2175/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a case of caste-based abuse and threats arising from a failed gas agency sale sought bail under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (POA) Act after the Special Judge rejected his application. The High Court allowed the appeal, noting the offences carry no death or life sentence and custody exceeded a month, granting bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection order set aside; bail granted on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety, with conditions against threatening witnesses and cooperation with investigation.

Chennakeshava Murthy Gowda Vs State by the Station House… — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:51195 CRL.A No. 2175 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2175 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHENNAKESHAVA MURTHY GOWDA S/O THIMAYYA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT SANABHAGATTA VILLAGE AMRUTHURU 12 HOBBLE, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA PIN CODE – 572 111.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI RANGANATH REDDY R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

STATE BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY (REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA PIN CODE – 560 001.

¶14

SRI SHALINI H V W/O VAALYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT No. 97, 4^TH CROSS ANNAPURANESHWARI LAYOUT OPPOSITE SAMBRAMA COLLEGE M S PALYA, VIDYARANYAPURA

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:51195 CRL.A No. 2175 of 2024

¶17

BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA PIN CODE – 560 097.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI A VENKAT SATHYANARAYA, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED. UNPRERESENTED)

¶20

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ANNEXURE-A THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2024 DISMISSING THE BAIL APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN CR.No.522/2024 AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying

¶25

to set aside the order dated 14.11.2024 passed in crime No. 522/2024 by LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the bail application of the appellant - accused sought in respect of crime No. 522/2024 of Yelahanka New Town Police Station registered for offence punishable under Sections 352, 351(2), 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short referred to as `BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51195 CRL.A No. 2175 of 2024

¶27

3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes

¶28

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the `SC ST (POA) Act’), came to be rejected.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for appellant - accused and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶30

The appellant - accused was running a gas agency by name of CKM Indane Gas Agency and he agreed to sell the same to respondent No.2 for consideration of Rs.2,05,00,000/- and received advance of Rs.80,00,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- and did not transfer the Gas agency as agreed and cheated respondent No.2. He is also stated to have issued cheques to respondent No.2 which came to dishonoured. That on 20.10.2024 when respondent No.2 was going along with her mother and younger brother by walking at about 09.00 am, the appellant - accused accidentally met them and abused

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:51195 CRL.A No. 2175 of 2024

¶32

them in singular taking their caste name and challenged them as to how they will get back their money and gave them life threat. Due to the said act of appellant - accused, respondent No. 2 was depressed and she started consuming pills. Respondent No. 2 filed complaint in that regard on 30.10.2024. Said complaint came to be registered in crime No. 522/2022 of Yelahanka New Town Police Station for offence under Sections 352, 351(2), 318(4) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC ST (POA) Act. The appellant - accused came to be arrested on 02.11.2024 and he is in judicial custody. The appellant - accused filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

¶33

Learned counsel for appellant - accused would contend that the offence alleged against the appellant - accused is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The allegation against appellant - accused is only regarding verbal abuse. Civil litigation is

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51195 CRL.A No. 2175 of 2024

¶35

given the colour of criminal offence. Without considering these aspects, learned Sessions Judge has erred in passing the impugned order. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellant - accused.

¶36

Per contra, leaned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 – State would contend that by receiving huge amount the appellant - accused cheated respondent No. 2 and he abused respondent No. 2, her mother and younger brother in filthy language taking their caste name and gave them life threat. Investigation is in progress. Considering the said aspect learned Special Court has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant - accused by the impugned order. With this he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶37

Having heard learned counsel for appellant - accused and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State, this Court has perused the impugned order and other material placed on record.

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:51195 CRL.A No. 2175 of 2024

¶39

A perusal of the averments of the complaint

¶40

indicates that there was a transaction between appellant - accused and respondent No. 2 regarding sale of Gas agency of the appellant - accused and respondent No. 2 had given advance amount of Rs.80,00,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- to the appellant - accused. The appellant - accused did not keep up his promise and for return of the amount received, he had issued cheques which came to be dishonoured. It is submitted that appellant - accused has been convicted in cheque dishonour case. The main accusation against this appellant - accused is that on 20.10.2024 he abused respondent No. 2, her mother and younger brother in public place in filthy words taking their caste name and gave them life threat. The offence alleged against appellant - accused is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The appellant - accused is in judicial custody for more than 1 month and therefore, now he is not required for custodial interrogation. The apprehension of the prosecution that if the appellant - accused is granted bail then he will threaten the

¶41

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:51195 CRL.A No. 2175 of 2024

¶42

complainant and other witnesses and hamper the investigation can be met with by imposing stringent conditions. The appellant - accused has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail.

¶43

In the result, the following;

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.11.2024 passed in crime No. 522/2024 by LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside and consequently the appellant - accused is granted bail in crime No. 522/2024 of Yelahanka New Town Police Station subject to the following conditions:

¶46

i. The appellant - accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶47

ii. The appellant - accused shall not threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:51195 CRL.A No. 2175 of 2024

¶49

iii. The appellant - accused shall cooperate with the Police in investigation.

¶50

iv. The appellant - accused shall appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing, unless exempted and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶51

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶52

LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Chennakeshava Murthy Gowda v. State by the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chennakeshava Murthy Gowda v. State by the Station House Officer

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

Yaasin @ Yaasin Sharif Vs State by Nagamangala Town Police

Kalesha R @ Vaddra Kallappa @ Rattihalli Kalesh S/O Anjinappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallikarjun S/O Ramakrishna Hadapad Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Anand M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Bharath @ Nepali Vs State of Karnataka

Imran Vs State of Karnataka