Allowed

Veeresh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2024CRL.A/2342/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.2 in a murder case appealed rejection of his bail petition. The court found no serious overt-act was attributed to him — only slapping — while the fatal head injury was allegedly caused by accused No.1, and that he was not needed for custodial interrogation after charge sheet filing. The appeal was allowed and bail granted with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellant released on bail in Crime No.171/2023 on Rs.1,00,000 personal bond with one surety, no witness tampering, and appearance at all hearings.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:4524 CRL.A No. 2342 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2342 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VEERESH S/O LATE NANDAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A BEHIND KAMALA CLINIC 3^RD CROSS, BHEL MINI COLONY PI MALLASANDRA T DASARAHALLI BENGALURU CITY-56

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI MANJUNATH M R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGALAGUNTE P S REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001

¶13

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

¶14

SURESH BABU R S/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A 3^RD CROSS, BABANNA LAYOUT MALLASANDRA BENGALURU-560073

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNACCEPTED)

¶17

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:4524 CRL.A No. 2342 of 2023

¶20

JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN CRL.MISC.NO.9147/2023 ON 12.10.2023.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by accused No.2 praying to set-aside the order dated 12.10.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.9147/2023 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder, the bail petition of this appellant – accused No.2 sought in respect of Crime No.171/2023 for the offences under Sections 323, 302 and 504 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act) , came to be rejected.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the appellant – accused No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has remained absent and unrepresented.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:4524 CRL.A No. 2342 of 2023

¶27

It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Smt.Chandrakala @ Smt.Manjula belonged to

¶28

‘Adi Karnataka’ caste and she had love affair with accused No.1 and married him and lived with him for twenty years and begot two children. Accused No.1 belongs to ‘Kuruba’ community. Accused No.1 deserted the deceased Smt.Chandrakala since two years. Smt.Chandrakala developed illicit intimacy with the appellant – accused No.2 who belongs to ‘Lingayath’ community. After gap of some years, accused No.1 rejoined the deceased Smt.Chandrakala. Accused No.1 quarrelled with the deceased Smt.Chandrakala as she had an illicit relationship with the appellant – accused No.2. On 16.06.2023, son of the deceased Smt.Chandrakala over telephone asked the complainant to come to the house as the deceased Smt.Chandrakala had fallen on the floor and she was unconscious. When the complainant questioned,

¶29

the son of Smt.Chandrakala informed that the appellant – accused No.2 abused and assaulted on the face of the deceased. Thereafter, accused No.1 came there and

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:4524 CRL.A No. 2342 of 2023

¶32

coming to know about the incident, he quarrelled with Smt.Chandrakala and assaulted her by slapping her and pushed her. As a result, her head dashed to the wall and she sustained injury to her head and fallen down, as she had not taken proper food. The deceased was taken to the hospital and she was treated there and she died on 17.06.2023. Respondent No.2 filed the complaint and a

¶33

case came to be registered against the appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2. Charge sheet came to be filed against the appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 323, 302 and 504 r/w Section 34

¶34

of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Accused No.2 came to be arrested and he is in judicial custody since 20.06.2023. The appellant – accused No.2 filed the bail petition and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order, which is challenged in this appeal.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant – accused No.2

¶36

would contend that the alleged incident had taken place on 10.06.2023 and there is a delay in filing the complaint

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:4524 CRL.A No. 2342 of 2023

¶39

which came to be filed on 18.06.2023. He further contends that the accusation against this appellant – accused No.2 is that he slapped on the cheek of the deceased on 10.06.2023 and that has not caused the death of the deceased. He further submits that accused No.1 assaulted the deceased and pushed her, due to which her head dashed to the wall and she sustained head injury and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased has opined that the death was due to the head injury. No serious overt-act is alleged against this appellant – accused No.2. As the charge sheet is filed, the appellant – accused No.2 is not required for the custodial interrogation. Without considering all

¶40

these aspects, the learned Sessions / Special Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference by this Court.

¶41

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State would contend that the deceased had an illicit relationship with this appellant – accused

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:4524 CRL.A No. 2342 of 2023

¶44

No.2. He further contends that CWs.2 and 3 who are the children of the deceased, are the eye witnesses to the incident and their statements have been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He contends that there is a prima facie case against this appellant – accused No.2 for the offences alleged against him. Considering all these aspects, learned Sessions / Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail petition which does not call for any interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶45

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

¶46

The alleged incident has occurred on 10.06.2023 and the deceased died on 17.06.2023 and the complaint came to be filed on 18.06.2023. The accusation against this appellant – accused No.2 in the charge sheet is that he slapped the deceased on her cheek and at that time, blood came out from her mouth. Thereafter, son of the

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:4524 CRL.A No. 2342 of 2023

¶48

deceased, over telephone complained to his father about the same and at that time, accused No.1 – husband of the deceased came there and assaulted her and pushed her, due to which, her head dashed to the wall and she sustained head injury. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased, has opined that the death is due to the head injury sustained by the deceased. The accusation against this appellant – accused No.2 is that he slapped on the cheek of the deceased. The head injury has been caused by accused No.1. Therefore, no serious overt-acts are alleged against this appellant – accused No.2, but the serious overt-act is alleged against accused No.1. As the charge sheet is filed, this appellant – accused No.2 is not required for the custodial interrogation. Without considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions / Special Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference by this Court.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:4524 CRL.A No. 2342 of 2023

¶51

The appellant – accused No.2 has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. In the result, the following;

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The appeal is allowed . The impugned order dated

¶54

12.10.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.9147/2023 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set-aside and the bail petition of the appellant – accused No.2 stands allowed. The appellant – accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.171/2023 of Bagalagunte Police Station, subject to the following conditions:

¶55

(i) The appellant – accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh only), with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶56

(ii) The appellant – accused No.2 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:4524 CRL.A No. 2342 of 2023

¶59

(iii) The appellant – accused No.2 shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Veeresh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeresh 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

Chandra Shekaraiah Vs State of Karnataka

Mahesh S/O Basappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jayappa Alias Balu S/O Bhairu Nilajakar Vs State of Karnataka

Siddeshi @ Siddesha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Narayanaswamy B.V. Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Harijana Shivashankar Vs the State of Karnataka