Sriramareddy vs The State Of Karnataka By

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.770/2021

BETWEEN:

SRIRAMAREDDY,
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
BHOGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
GUDIBANDA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.                        ...APPELLANT

            (BY SRI SHANKARAPPA S. ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       BY GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION,
       REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT BUILDING.

2.     SMT. VENKATANARASAMMA,
       W/O VENKATARAYAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
       GANDHAMNAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
       GUDIBANDE TALUK,
       CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.          ... RESPONDENTS

             (BY SRI P. THEJESH, HCGP FOR R-1,
                        R-2 - SERVED)
                                          2



     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(2)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING THIS COURT TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 27.05.2021 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 114, 120B, 302, 34 OF
IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(V)(VA) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ETC.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging the order dated 27.05.2021 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura in Special S.C.No.24/2021 rejecting the application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader. The respondent No.2 has been served with notice, but there is no representation on his behalf.

3. The case pertains to homicidal death of one Sri Lakshminarasimhappa. The incident is said to have been taken place on 06.02.2021 near Bhogenahalli Village, Gudibande Taluk. 3

4. The main allegation against the appellant is that he conspired with other accused for eliminating Lakshminarasimhappa. There are no direct witnesses to the incident and the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence. There is no recovery from this appellant. This Court has already granted bail to accused No.4 Manjunath. Since the prosecution is supposed to prove all the links in the chain of circumstances, at this stage, it is not possible to hold that there are prima facie materials against the appellant. The Trial Court has just come to the conclusion that there are materials against the appellant. In this view, I do not find that the order of the Trial Court can be sustained. Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) The order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, dated 27.05.2021 in Special S.C.No.24/2021 rejecting the application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby set aside and the said application is allowed.

(iii) It is ordered that the appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The appellant is subjected to the following conditions:

(a) He shall not tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses.

(b) He shall regularly appear before the Trial Court till the conclusion of the trial.

(c) He shall not get involved in any criminal case.

(d) If any complaint is received against the appellant regarding tampering of the evidence or threatening the witnesses, it will be viewed seriously for cancellation of the bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE MD