Dismissed¶¶37

Shivaraj @ Musla v. the State of Karnataka

Bail – refusal

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2025CRL.A/358/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, CRL.A No. 358 of 2025, decided 16.04.2025 by H.P.Sandesh J. Appeal under Section 14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 seeking bail for accused No.2 (Shivaraj @ Musla) in Spl.C.No.5078/2023 (IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga at Bhadravathi; offences under Ss.3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(t) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 and Ss.506, 504, 448, 323, 324, 326, 354 r/w 34 IPC). Bail refused: anticipatory bail earlier granted but not complied with; absence despite service of summons; NBW not executed; secured only on proclamation; in custody from 18.12.2024. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appellant, having already been granted a conditional order of anticipatory bail, did not comply with the order passed by the Court. ¶¶31

Shivaraj @ Musla Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:15629 CRL.A No. 358 of 2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.358 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHIVARAJ @ MUSLA, S/O MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: COOLIE, R/O ANTHARAGANGE CHAMP VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 245.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. GOPAL K.B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Digitally signed RURAL POLICE STATION, by DEVIKA M BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. Location: HIGH COURT OF REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶14

YOGEESHA Y., S/O YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. ANTHARAGANGE VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 245.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 – SERVED)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15629 CRL.A No. 358 of 2025

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI IN SPL.C.NO.5078/2023 DATED 10.01.2025 AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL GRANTING BAIL TO THE APPELLANT (A2) IN SPL.C.NO.5078/2023, PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF LEARNED IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SAME COURT IN SPL.C.NO.5078/2023 DATED 10^TH JANUARY 2025 WHEREIN CHARGE SHEET IS FILED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE STATION RURAL POLICE, BHADRAVATHI, AGAINST APPELLANT.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State.

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 and 2 indulged in committing the offence under Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(t) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and also offences under Sections 506, 504, 448, 323, 324, 326, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC. This appellant, who is arrayed as accused No.2 had approached the Trial Court invoking the provisions of anticipatory bail and the

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15629 CRL.A No. 358 of 2025

¶25

same was granted and inspite of granting of anticipatory bail,

¶26

he did not comply with the order of the Court. Thereafter, the police investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet and even after filing of the charge-sheet also, the accused did not appear before the Court inspite of service of summons and thereafter NBW was issued and the same was not executed and hence proclamation was issued and thereafter he was arrested and he is in custody.

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is having a sister and nobody is there to take care of the sister. The learned counsel submits that only summons was issued and the same was not served and the appellant is in custody from 18.12.2024 and he has not committed any offence and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶28

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State submits that the order of the Trial Court in paragraph No.7 is very clear that inspite of anticipatory bail was granted, the accused has not complied with the same and even not furnished the surety in compliance of the bail order. Apart from that, summons was issued and the same was served and he did not appear before

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15629 CRL.A No. 358 of 2025

¶30

the Court and thereafter NBW was issued and the same was not executed and thereafter proclamation was issued and only on proclamation, he was produced before the Court on 18.12.2024 and when he is not respecting the Court order, the question of exercising the discretion does not arise.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State and also considering the material on record, the offences invoked against the accused are IPC offence as well as under Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(t) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and when the Court already granted conditional order of anticipatory bail, he did not comply with the order passed by the Court. Apart from that, he did not even respect the order of the Trial Court when the summons was served and he was brought before the Court only after issuance of proclamation. When such being the material on record, when the appellant even did not bother about complying with the order of the Court in granting bail and not complied with the conditional order as well as even not appeared before the Court when summons was served and with great difficulty he was secured by issuing

¶32

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15629 CRL.A No. 358 of 2025

¶33

the proclamation and hence he is not entitled for bail. The Trial Court also assigned the reason while rejecting that bail that he is not having any respect to the Court order. No grounds are made out.

¶34