The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed u/s 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2015 praying to set aside the order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and grant regular bail to him in special case u/s 120b, 149 and 302 of IPC and Sec. 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. The Court observed that though a detailed discussion on the merits of the case is not warranted, the Court considering a bail application has a duty to apply a judicial mind and record reasons.
Brief Facts:
The charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 8 for offenses punishable under Section 120B, 149, and 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case of the prosecution is that, on account of previous enmity accused Nos.1 and 2 along with other accused persons committed the murder of the complainant’s husband by name Ravi on 24.05.2023 at around 11.15 p.m., by assaulting him with deadly weapons.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there are four eyewitnesses, but they have not alleged any specific overt acts against the petitioner that he has assaulted the deceased with any weapon and therefore, he has been falsely implicated.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that if the accused is granted conditional bail, there is a possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. does not indicate that proper reasons are assigned while disposing of the said application. The learned Sessions Judge has only stated that the material eye witness has specifically stated before the police about the involvement of the accused persons and as argued by the learned HCGP, if the accused is granted conditional bail, there is a possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses. In the impugned order, the contentions raised on behalf of the accused have not been adverted to.
The Court observed that though a detailed discussion on the merits of the case is not warranted, the Court considering a bail application has a duty to apply a judicial mind and record reasons. The learned Sessions Judge has not assigned proper reasons and hence, the order is liable to be set aside.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., by accused No.4 afresh after hearing both the parties, in accordance with the law, within a period of 15 days.
Case Title: Kiran Kumar B N v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Mohammad Nawaz
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2214 OF 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. V R Balaraj
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. B. Lakshman
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
