Mahendra S/O. Gadilingappa vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3258 Kant

                           -1-



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                         BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100140 OF 2021

BETWEEN
MAHENDRA S/O. GADILINGAPPA
AGE. 25 YEARS,
OCC. AUTO RICKSHAW DRIVER,
R/O. WARD NO.35,
NEAR ASHOK NAGAR CANAL,
SIRUGUPPA ROAD, BALLARI-583101
                                             ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SABEEL AHAMMED, ADV., FOR
SRI. B ANWAR BASHA., ADV., AND L. S. SULLAD ADV.,)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY DEPUTY POLICE SUPERINTENDENT
      CITY-SUB DIVISION COWL BAZAR
      POLICE STATION, BALLARI-583101
      R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      DHARWAD BENCH-580001.

2.    GOPAL NAIK S/O DASA NAIK
      AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
      R/O D.NO.105, W.NO.29,
      1ST CROSS, OPP. OLD FOREST QUARTERS,
      RAMANJINAYA NAGAR, COWL BAZAR,
      BALLARI-583201.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAMESH B CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1;
R2- NOTICE SERVED)
                              -2-



      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC/ST
ACT, 2016, SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE ABOVE SAID APPELLANT
(ACCUSED NO.16) ON BAIL IN COWL BAZAR POLICE STATION
CRIME NO.108/2020, SPECIAL CASE NO.1067/2020 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 302,
120B, 109, 212 R/W 149 IPC, SECTION 3(2), 2(V) OF SC/ST
ACT, 1989 AND SECTION 4, 25, 1(B) OF ARMS ACT, 1959 ON
THE FILE OF I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,
BALLARI.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 2016 (for short "SC/ST (POA) Act") for

setting aside the order passed in Special Case

No.1067/2020 by I-Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Ballari dated 06.01.2021 whereby he has rejected the bail

petition filed by the present appellant-accused No.16.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is

that one Gopal Naik filed a complaint alleging that his

brother-Ramesh Naik was doing financial business, he had

two wives and the brother of the complainant, C.D.Ravi

was murdered in 2014 by accused No.1-Ajay kishore and

other accused and case was pending in Special Case

No.96/2004 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge,

Ballari. It is alleged that 3-4 months prior to the incident,

accused No.1 along with his friends tried to compromise

the said case but deceased Ramesh Naik denied the said

offer. It is further alleged that thereafter all the accused

conspired amongst themselves and on 25.07.2010 at

about 4.30 p.m., accused No.1 to 5 attacked Ramesh Naik

opposite to TV sanitarium and when the complainant after

getting knowledge went to the spot, he found that his

brother's bike was standing by the side of the road and his

brother-Ramesh Naik sustained grievous injuries and

succumbed to the injuries. In this regard, complaint came

to be lodged, which is registered in Crime No.108/2020 for

the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,

302m 120-B, 109 read with Section 149 of IPC as well as

under the provisions of SC/ST (POA Act) and also Arms

Act. Thereafter, the investigating officer arrested the other

accused. The appellant herein was also arrested on

13.10.2020 and he continued to be in judicial custody. It is

alleged that the appellant herein, who is arrayed as

accused No.16, has conspired with other accused in

commission of the offences and also supplied arms to

accused Nos.1 to 5. Hence, after investigation, the

investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet. On

the basis of the charge sheet, the learned Special Judge

has taken cognizance.

3. In the meanwhile, the appellant has

approached the Special Judge seeking regular bail but the

learned Special Judge, by his order dated 06.01.2021

rejected his bail petition. Hence, the appellant claimed that

he is constrained to approach this Court by way of seeking

regular bail.

4. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for appellant and the learned HCGP appearing for

respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 though served with

notice, remained unrepresented. Perused the records.

5. The learned counsel for appellant would

contend that the appellant herein is arrayed as accused

No.16 and he is in judicial custody from 13.10.2020. He

would further contend that the statement of CW16

discloses that his initial statement was inconsistent with

the subsequent statement, which was recorded two

months after the initial statement and further, the

allegations against the present appellant is only regarding

supply of arms for commission of offence and conspiring.

He would further contend that accused Nos.2 to 5 who are

the main accused have already been granted bail by this

Court and as such, he would seek bail on the ground of

parity. He also undertook to abide by the terms and

conditions to be imposed by this Court.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP has seriously

objected the bail contending that the offences are serious

in nature and the statement of witnesses clearly establish

the involvement of the appellant herein in commission of

the offence and he further contended that in case he is

enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of he tampering

the prosecution witnesses and jumping on bail. Hence, he

would seek for rejection of the appeal.

7. Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, it is evident that the appellant herein is arrayed as

accused No.16 and the allegations against him are for the

offences punishable under Sections 120-B of IPC and

under the provisions of Arms Act. It is alleged that he was

part of conspiracy and he provided arms to accused Nos. 1

to 5. It is evident that accused Nos.1, 11 to 15, 18 and 19

have been prosecuted in murder case of C.D.Ravi, the

brother of Ramesh Naik and it is also alleged that the said

case is registered in Special Case No.96/2014. The

allegations of the prosecution itself disclose that the

deceased Ramesh Naik was taking lead in the said case in

prosecuting the matter and securing the witnesses. The

accused No.1 offered for compromise and same was not

accepted. Hence, it is alleged that the present appellant

along with other accused conspired and the movements of

Ramesh Naik were noticed and thereafter accused Nos.1 to

14 have actively participated in the commission of murder

of the deceased, while appellant herein/accused No.16 and

accused No.19 were indirectly supported them. CW12 is

alleged to be an eyewitness and it is alleged that when

deceased was traveling on a bike along with CW12,

accused No.5 stopped auto in front of bullet of deceased

Ramesh Naik and accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 took long and

chopper and attacked the deceased. Admittedly, when the

alleged incident has taken place, the present appellant was

not present and the allegations against him were only in

respect of he conspiring with other accused and providing

arms. No specific overt act is alleged in respect of offence

under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant herein.

Further, it is evident that accused Nos.2 to 5 were said to

have actively participated in commission of the offence but

they have been granted regular bail in Criminal Appeal

No.100184/2021 and Criminal Appeal No.100138/2021.

Hence, the appellant herein also stands on the same

footing and in view of granting of bail to accused Nos.2 to

5, appellant herein also entitled for bail on the ground of

parity. The investigation is concluded and charge sheet is

submitted and his presence is no more required by the

investigating agency. Hence, the appeal needs to be

allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The impugned order dated 06.01.2021 passed by the

I-Additional District and Special Judge, Ballari in Spl.Case

No.1067/2020 rejecting the bail is hereby set aside and

appellant/accused No.16 is ordered to be released on bail,

on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following

conditions:

i. Appellant/accused No.16 shall not tamper

with the prosecution witnesses either

directly or indirectly.

ii. He shall be regular in attending the trial

proceedings, unless he is exempted by the

court specifically.

iii. He shall furnish proof of his correct

address and shall intimate the court

regarding change in address, if any.

iv. He shall mark his attendance in the

jurisdictional police station on first Sunday

of every month for a period of six months.

Violation of the above conditions would result in

cancellation of the bail automatically.

Sd/-

JUDGE

yan