Sri. Ambareesha @ Manju Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:32118 CRL.A No. 1062 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶4

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1062 OF 2025

¶6

(U/S 14(A) (2))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. AMBAREESHA @ MANJU S/O VENKATARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT MANGAPURA VILLAGE SANTHEHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI MALURU TALUK, KOLAR-563 130 …APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VEMGAL POLICE, KOLAR DISTRICT REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING DR.AMBEDKER VEEDHI

¶12

BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI. MADHU.M S/O LATE MYLARAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT A BLOCK, VIDYANAGAR

¶15

NARASAPURA VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR-563 101 …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON REGULAR BAIL IN SPL.SC/ST.NO.19/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, REGISTERED BY VEMAGAL POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 103(1), 238, 351, 352 OF BNS, 2023, U/S 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989.

¶18

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

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:32118 CRL.A No. 1062 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 06.02.2025 passed in Spl. S.C. IPC & SC/ST No.19/2024 by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar and release the appellant on regular bail in Cr.No.156/2024 registered by the Vemagal police station for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 351, 352 of Bharathiya Nyaya Samhita (for brevity, ‘BNS’) and Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘SC & ST (POA) Act’).

¶25

The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court, for convenience.

¶26

Factual matrix of the case:

¶27

It is the case of the prosecution that the

¶28

complainant lodged the complaint stating that he had performed marriage of his sister 14 years ago with accused No.1 and they had two children. His brother-in-law was working as a driver of the lorry and tempo. After consuming alcohol, his

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32118 CRL.A No. 1062 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

brother-in-law used to come to the house and used to beat his sister one or the other pretext. Therefore, his sister left the matrimonial home and started residing in her parental home along with her children. His brother-in-law used to visit his home often after consuming alcohol and used to create nuisance there. Though, he was advised to mend his behaviour, he did not listen. Such being the fact, on 11.07.2024, at about 6.48 a.m., his brother-in-law called the complainant over mobile phone and informed him that he had killed Narayanaswamy and thrown the dead body into the water and if he wanted to see the same, he can go and see the dead body. After having confirmed that the said Narayanaswamy had been killed, the complaint came to be registered against the accused by the respondent police in Cr.No.156/2024 for the aforesaid offences.

¶32

Heard Sri. Nanjunda Gowda M.R., learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶33

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the entire case is based on the circumstantial

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:32118 CRL.A No. 1062 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

evidence. Except the statement of accused who is arrayed as accused No.1 that he had killed the decease, no other evidence would support the case of the prosecution regarding the commission of murder of the deceased.

¶38

It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not collected the CD to demonstrate that accused No.1 had spoken with the complainant and informed about the murder of the deceased. Such being the fact, it would not be appropriate to keep the accused in judicial custody and hence, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶39

Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently opposed the said submission and submitted that though the case is based on the circumstantial evidence, the fact remains that there is a nexus and circumstances that would indicate that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant him bail.

¶40

Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the findings of the Trial Court, it appears from the record that the entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. It is averred that accused No.1 himself had informed

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32118 CRL.A No. 1062 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the complainant that he had killed the deceased and had thrown the dead body into the water. However, as per the records, there is no CD available to indicate that he had informed the complainant regarding the murder. Therefore, it is appropriate to enlarge the appellant on bail by imposing suitable conditions which would take care of the apprehension of learned HCGP.

¶44

In the light of the observations made above, I

¶45

proceed to pass the following:-

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) The criminal appeal is allowed . ii) The order dated 06.02.2025 passed in Spl. S.C. IPC & SC/ST No.19/2024 by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar is set aside.

¶48

iii) The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail in Cr.No.156/2024 registered by the Vemagal police station for the aforesaid offences subject to the following conditions:

¶49