Dismissed¶45

Shekar @ Guna Shekar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2025CRL.A/2282/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), CRL.A No. 2282 of 2024, decided 20-02-2025 by Justice Shivashankar Amaranavar (NC: 2025:KHC:7659): appeal under S.14A(2) SC/ST (POA) Act by accused No.2 against rejection of regular bail in Spl.C.No.740/2020 (Crime No.148/2020, Mico Layout PS) for murder (SS.143,144,147,148,302,506 r/w 149 IPC), Arms Act SS.25(1)(1-B)(B) & 27(3), and SC/ST Act S.3(2)(v); custody since 07.08.2020; 20 of 45 witnesses examined, no delay in trial; heinous offence punishable with death or life; bail refusal upheld; appeal dismissed. Respondent No.2 (Lokesh) served and unrepresented; State represented by HCGP B. Lakshman; appellant by Narayanaswamy K.N.

What did the court decide?

None; the appellant was not enlarged on regular bail and the Special Judge's rejection order dated 07.11.2024 stands. ¶45

Shekar @ Guna Shekar Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appellant was not enlarged on regular bail and the Special Judge's rejection order dated 07.11.2024 stands.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act praying to set aside the order dated 07.11.2024 and enlarge the appellant (accused No.2) on regular bail in Spl.C.No.740/2020 (Crime No.148/2020) should be allowed. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

There are no grounds made out for setting aside the impugned order and for grant of bail to the appellant; consequently the appeal is dismissed.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

A serious overt act is alleged against the appellant - accused No.2, namely assaulting deceased Mani with a long chopper on his face, head, neck and other parts of the body.

¶42

Key takeaways

The mere fact that the only eyewitness, CW.2, has already been examined is not a ground for grant of bail.ratio¶42
The prosecution has already examined 20 witnesses, which itself indicates that there is no delay in trial.ratio¶44
Ill-health of the appellant's parents is not a ground for grant of bail, as the offence alleged against him is a heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 2282 of 2024 (filed under Section 14A(2), SC/ST (POA) Act) — High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Justice Shivashankar Amaranavar, decided 20.02.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:7659). Accused No.2, Shekar @ Guna Shekar, in Spl.C.No.740/2020 arising from Crime No.148/2020 of Mico Layout Police Station — offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 506 r/w 149 IPC, Sections 25(1)(1-B)(B) and 27(3) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 — appealed against the Special Judge's order dated 07.11.2024 rejecting his regular bail application. He had been in judicial custody since 07.08.2020 (about four years five months); counsel pleaded delay in trial (only 20 of 45 witnesses examined), prior examination of the lone eyewitness CW.2, and his parents' ill-health. Held: a serious overt act is alleged against him of assaulting deceased Mani with a long chopper on the face, head, neck and other body parts; the offence is heinous and punishable with death or imprisonment for life; examination of 20 witnesses shows no delay in trial; neither the eyewitness's examination nor the parents' illness is a ground for bail; the Special Judge rightly rejected the bail application and no grounds exist to set aside the impugned order. Appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:7659 CRL.A No. 2282 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2282 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHEKAR @ GUNA SHEKAR S/O VADIVEL AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.40, 18^TH CROSS 7^TH MAIN ROAD, N.S. PALYA, BTM 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 078

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. NARAYANASWAMY K.N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMAVATHY GANGABYRAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 560 001

¶15

SRI. LOKESH S/O SELVAM AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT.NO.OLD NO.805 NEW NO.916, NEAR DPA SANGA J.T.TREE SLUM, N.S.PALYA

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:7659 CRL.A No. 2282 of 2024

¶18

B.G.ROAD, BANGALORE CITY-560 078

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2024 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL IN (CR.NO.148/2020) SPL.C.NO.740/2020 OF MICO LAYOUT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,144,147,148,302,506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.25(1)(1-B)(B) AND 27(3) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT 1959 AND 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE AT BENGALURU.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is field by accused No.2 praying to set aside

¶26

the order dated 07.11.2024 passed in Spl.C.No.740/2020 (Crime No.148/2020 of Mico Layout Police Station) registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302

¶27

and 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 25(1),(1-B),(B) and 27(3) of Indian Arms Act, 1959

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:7659 CRL.A No. 2282 of 2024

¶30

and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The impugned order has been passed rejecting the bail application of the appellant - accused No.2 sought in the said crime.

¶31

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

¶32

It is the case of the prosecution that as per column No.7 of the charge sheet, on 03.08.2020 at about 8:30 p.m. when deceased Mani, CW.2 and accused Nos.5 and 6 were sitting, at that time accused Nos.1 to 4 came there and in furtherance of the conspiracy between the accused persons, accused No.1 assaulted deceased Mani with long chopper on his face, accused No.2 assaulted with chopper on deceased and when the deceased held the said chopper, accused No.1 told accused Nos.5 and 6 to assault deceased to take revenge against him as he has assaulted them. At that time, accused Nos.5 and 6 held the deceased tightly and accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted the deceased with long chopper on his head, face,

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:7659 CRL.A No. 2282 of 2024

¶35

neck, ear, right hand, left hand and other parts of the body and dragged him through the steps near the gate and there also they assaulted the deceased and gave threat to CW.2 who was eyewitness to the incident to kill him if he inform this incident to police. The case has been registered against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences and it is pending in Spl.C.No.740/2020. Accused No.2 - appellant herein who has been in judicial custody since 07.08.2020 has filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant is in judicial custody since four years five months and there is a delay in trial. He further submits that out of 45 witnesses only 20 witnesses have been examined. He further submits that the parents of the appellant - accused No.2 are unwell and presence of this appellant - accused No.2 is required to take care of his parents. He further submits that CW.2 - eyewitness has already been examined as PW.6. Without considering all these aspect, the learned Special Judge has erred in rejecting the bail application by the impugned

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:7659 CRL.A No. 2282 of 2024

¶39

order. With this, he prayed for allowing the appeal and grant bail to the appellant - accused No.2.

¶40

The learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the appellant is a rowdy sheeter and there are two criminal cases pending against him. Already 20 witnesses have been examined and the prosecution has to examine remaining witnesses and there is no any delay in trial. If the appellant - accused No.2 is granted bail, there is a threat to other prosecution witnesses. Offence alleged against the appellant is a heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned order and other charge sheet material placed on record.

¶42

There is a serious overt act alleged against this appellant - accused No.2 assaulting deceased Mani with long chopper on face, head, neck and other parts of the body. Merely because only eyewitness that is CW.2 has already been examined, is not a ground for grant of bail. The prosecution

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7659 CRL.A No. 2282 of 2024

¶44

has already examined 20 witnesses. That itself indicates that there is no delay in trial. Merely because the parents of the appellant - accused No.2 are unwell, is not a ground for grant of bail, as the offence alleged against the appellant - accused No.2 is a heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Considering all these aspects, the learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant - accused No.2 by the impugned order. There are no grounds made out for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail.

¶45

8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed .

¶46

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

¶48

Shekar @ Guna Shekar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shekar @ Guna Shekar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr George Pais Vs Mr Austin Lobo

Smt Kamalakshamma N K Vs D B Jatti

Arvind Kumar Vs Mr Gautham Sajjanrajji Shankla

Sri N M Rajashekaraiah Vs Smt a D Girijamma

M/S Span Aquatic Products Vs M/S Nexus Feeds Ltd.

Smt Pooja Narasimha Hegde Vs Yajaman Developers