Manu. K. M. Vs State of Karnataka by

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11717 CRL.A No. 502 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.502 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANU K.M., S/O MARULAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, LABOURER, R/AT KANCHUKAL VILLAGE, S. BIDRE, SINGATAGERE HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHICKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI K.S. GANESHA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHICKAMAGALURU RURAL POLICE, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

SHANTHAPPA S/O LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, COOLIE, R/AT BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577132.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP A/W SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11717 CRL.A No. 502 of 2024

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE CHIKKAMGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.24/2022 AND RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL REGISTERED, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 201, 302 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3(1)(s) AND 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015 AND ETC.

¶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

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

¶23

also the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶24

This appeal is filed invoking Section 14(A)(2) of

¶25

Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1982 setting aside the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the I Addl. Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Spl.C.No.24/2022 and release the appellant on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11717 CRL.A No. 502 of 2024

¶27

3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶28

The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that both deceased and the appellant were working in a coffee estate and they were residing together in a house provided by the owner of the estate. That on 18.11.2021 at about 8:30 p.m., when the writer of the estate went to the coolie line to call the appellant and deceased and there was no response from them. Thereafter when he along with the owner of the estate, went inside the house and found the dead body in the pool of blood. This fact was intimated to the father of the deceased over phone and he came on the next morning and lodged a report suspecting his involvement of this appellant. The Police have investigate the matter and invoked Section 302 and 201 of IPC as well as Section 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 since victim belongs to the SC/ST. The grounds urged before the Court prima facie, there is nothing on record to show that

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11717 CRL.A No. 502 of 2024

¶30

appellant knew that the deceased was a member of schedule caste or a schedule tribe. Hence, offence invoked under the Special Enactment does not attract unless he knows that deceased belonged to the particular caste. The counsel also would vehemently contend that there is an inordinate delay in registering the case and the appellant is in custody from 20.11.2021 and no progress in the matter even though evidence was commenced. The counsel also submits that NBW was issued against CW7 and he was not secured. When the counsel made the very same submission in the previous occasion before the Court, this Court directed the learned Additional SPP to verify with regard to delay is concerned.

¶31

The counsel appearing for State also placed on record the report of Investigating Officer stating that on 17.03.2025, CW8 and CW3 were examined before the Trial Court and CW7 was given up due to the health reasons and Trial Court already issued witness summons to CW9, CW10 and CW11 and date is fixed for further trial on

¶32

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11717 CRL.A No. 502 of 2024

¶33

09.04.2025 and the counsel for the State submits that

¶34

there is a progress in the matter. But the counsel for the appellant relying upon the order sheet brought to notice of this Court that though the trial was commenced on 16.01.2024, there was no progress. The counsel for the appellant submits that CW7 was secured before the Trial Court on 04.07.2024 and at the request of the witness, on the health ground, bind over CW7 and later on he did not appear and now also CW7 was already given up by the prosecution. When such report is placed on record, the counsel contends that the appellant is in custody from 2021 and he may be enlarged on bail with conditions.

¶35

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

¶36

the State would vehemently contend that both the deceased and victim were staying in the very same room and body was found in the very same room and accused was apprehended on the very next date and investigation was conducted and charge-sheet is also filed and now, witnesses have been examined. The counsel also would

¶37

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11717 CRL.A No. 502 of 2024

¶38

vehemently contend that he is going to give instructions to the Investigating Officer to produce the remaining witnesses on the next date of hearing and assist the Trial Court.

¶39

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶40

the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record and taking note of the charges leveled against the accused, particularly, in column No.17 wherein specific allegation is made that this appellant inflicted the injury with the machete. Though the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence, the Court has to take note of Section 106 of the Evidence Act as such the accused has to explain the same during the course of the trial. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to enlarge the appellant on bail when serious offence allegedly committed by this appellant and PM report also clearly discloses that death is due to carnio-cerebral damage, as a result of injury sustained to head consequent upon sharp

¶41

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11717 CRL.A No. 502 of 2024

¶42

heavy cutting force impact. All the injuries are antemortem in nature and fresh at the time of death.

¶43

Having taken note of the nature of injuries and considering the fact that victim belongs to the particular community and offences under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 are also invoked against the accused, it is not a case for granting the bail. However, this Court can give direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and also can give direction to the Investigating Officer to produce the remaining witnesses without causing any delay.

¶44

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The appeal is dismissed.

¶47

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11717 CRL.A No. 502 of 2024

¶48

The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible and the Investigating Officer is also directed to produce the witnesses without fail in future date of hearing and liberty is also given in case, if Investigating Officer fails to produce the witnesses before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing. The learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to instruct the Investigating Officer as undertaken during the course of the arguments.

¶49

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶50

RHS/SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Manu. K. M. v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manu. K. M. v. State of Karnataka by

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

Rudramuniswamy @ D M Rudramuniswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Pradeep R Hattangadi Vs State by Central Burea of Investigation

Andanaiah K Vs the State by Malavalli Town Police Station

M Vijay Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Nanjamma Vs Smt Puttamma

Mr Rajkumar Vs M/S Bcil Red Earth Developers India Pvt. Ltd.