Appeal under Section 14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA) Act against rejection of bail to accused No.2 in a murder and conspiracy case arising from an alleged honour-related killing. The court found prima facie material against the appellant, held delay in recording witness statements was not a ground for bail, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:5164 CRL.A No. 2384 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2384 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MADHU D., S/O DYVA KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT SADALAHALLI VILLAGE, BASHETTI HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA -562 101.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR H.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
NC: 2024:KHC:5164 CRL.A No. 2384 of 2023
(BY SMT ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R-1 V/O DATED 05.02.2024, NOTICE TO R-2 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2023, WHICH IS PASSED BY THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT IN SPL.C.C.NO.123/2023 AND ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CR.NO.121/2023 OF DIBBURHALLI P.S., CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B),302,341,504,506,114, R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT IN SPL.C.C.NO.123/2023 AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by appellant–accused No.2
praying to set aside the order dated 20.11.2023 passed in Spl.S.C.No.123/2023 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, whereunder the bail application of this appellant–accused No.2 sought in respect of crime No.121/2023 of Dibburahalli Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 341, 504, 506, 114 of Indian Penal Code (for short hereinafter referred to as `IPC’) and Section 3(2)(v) of
the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as `SC and ST Act’), came to be rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:5164 CRL.A No. 2384 of 2023
accused No.1. As such the deceased convened a panchayath near the Silkworm house of accused No.3 and during panchayath, the accused No.1 abused the deceased Narayanaswamy and threatened with dire consequences. Thereafter, on the advise of deceased Narayanaswamy, the CW.8 lodged the complaint before the complainant police and NCR No.144/2023 registered. After enquiry in the said proceedings, a quarrel took place between accused No.1 and deceased at the outside of police station and the deceased threatened to lodge the atrocity case if he intervene with the affairs of the women belong to his caste and he also abused the brother of accused No.1. As the deceased objected for the illicit relationship between accused No.1 and 6, the accused No.1 and 6 developed illwill against the deceased and accused No.6 abetted the accused No.1 to eliminate the deceased. Accordingly, the accused No.1 conspired with his friends accused No.2 to 5 at the vacant land of North-East properties situated at Belluti village and the Silkworm house of accused No.3 to eliminate the deceased. As per their conspiracy, on
24.08.2023, the accused No.1 to 3 followed the deceased who was traveling in the Omni car bearing Reg.No.KA-03M-2225 and while the deceased was proceeding towards his village in the aforesaid Omni car, at 7.30 p.m., the accused no.3 stopped the said car of deceased near the land of CW.12 on the pretext of talking with regard to the land transaction. At that time, the accused No.1 and 2 came from the backside of deceased and the accused no.1 threw the chilly powder on the face of deceased. The deceased attempted to run away from the spot, however the accused No.1 to 3 followed him and assaulted him with chopper and dagger knife on his vital parts of the body and caused grievous injuries. Due to the deadly assaults, the deceased fell down and died at the spot. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The appellant/accused No.2 is in judicial custody and filed bail application along with accused Nos.3 and 4 and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order, which is challenged in this appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:5164 CRL.A No. 2384 of 2023
report reveal that deceased has sustained 15 injuries and some of the injuries are on vital part. She further contends that CW-2 and 3 are eye witnesses to the incident who are stated assault by this appellant-accused No.2 to the deceased and causing injuries. Charge sheet materials shows prima facie case against this appellantaccused No.2. Considering all these aspects, she submits that there are no grounds for allowing the appeal and grant bail. With this, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
perused the impugned order and charge sheet materials.
No.1 to 5 have conspired to kill the deceased
Narayanswami. In furtherance, accused Nos.1 and 2 have secured chopper and dragger knife and were following the deceased Narayanswami to commit his murder. CW-4 is Geeta who is relative of the deceased Narayanswami, she was traveling with deceased in his car. When accused No.1 and other accused persons were following the deceased Narayanswami, she enquired, the deceased Narayanswami told name of the accused No.1 who was with his friends. Incident has been witnessed by CW-2 and 3 who are stated regarding overtacts of this appellant/accused No.2 assaulting the deceased Narayanswami with knife and causing severe injuries. Merely because delay in recording the statements of CW-2 and 3 is not ground for grant of bail as one of the alleged offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Considering the charge sheet materials there is prima facie case against this appellantaccused No.2. Considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of this appellant-accused No.2. There are no grounds for
NC: 2024:KHC:5164 CRL.A No. 2384 of 2023
setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail to the appellant-accused No.2.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Court rightly rejected bail to accused No.2 charged under Sections 120-B, 302, 341, 504, 506, 114 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA) Act despite alleged delay in recording
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Madhu D.
State of Karnataka by Dibburahalli P.S., Chikkaballapura District
Gagan B.N.
Shivashankar Amrannanavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
