Krishana @ Uddandi vs The State By
2021 Latest Caselaw 2065 Kant

                          1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2021

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR


       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.568 OF 2021


BETWEEN:

[email protected] Uddandi,
S/o Drugappa,
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at Korachara Street,
Ranebennuru Taluk,
Haveri District,
Pin code No-560 08.

                                        ...Appellant
(By Sri.Raju C.N., Advocate)

AND:

1.   The State by
     Nayakanahatti Police,
     Chitradurga,
     Rep. by High Court of Karnataka,
     Bangalore-560 001.

2.   Eramma,
     W/o Seenappa,
     45 years,
     R/at Anjaneya Badavane,
                            2


     Nayakanahatti,
     Chitradurga Taluk,
     Chitradurga-560 078.
                                        ...Respondents
(By Sri.Rahul Rai K., HCGP. For R1:
R2 served and unrepresented)

     This criminal appeal is filed under Section 14-
A(1) of SC/ST (POA) Act praying to enlarge the
appellant on bail and set aside the Order
dated:10.02.2021      passed      in     SPL.C.(SC/ST)
No.29/2020 on the file of the II Additional District and
Sessions   Judge,    Chitradurga     arising   out    of
Cr.No.75/2020 of Nayakanahatti Police, Bengaluru for
the Offence punishable under Sections 143,147,148,
201,302,396,120(B) r/w 149 of IPC and 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (POA) Act by allowing this Crl.A.

      This criminal appeal coming on for admission this
day, the court delivered the following:

                     JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Raju C.N., for

appellant - accused No.6. In this appeal, the

Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against

the accused in Spl.C.(SC/ST) No.29/2020, which is

pending before the learned Special, 2nd Addl. District

and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant -

accused No.6 challenging the order passed by the trial

court in the aforesaid case in its order dated

10.02.2021 relating to Crime No.75/2020 for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,

201, 302, 396, 120(B) read with Section 149 of IPC

and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

3. The Investigating Officer has laid the

charge sheet against the accused in the aforesaid

Crime registered by Nayakanahatti Police Station,

Chitradurga District. But the bail application filed by

accused No.6 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in the

aforesaid charge sheet has been dismissed by its

order dated 10-2-2021 by assigning the reasons and

the copy of the order is also produced by the counsel

for the appellant in this matter for the purpose of

perusal. It is submitted that the co-accused Nos.1 to

5 and 8 have already been granted bail by the trial

court in the aforesaid case, which is also grounded in

this appeal for seeking parity for consideration of the

appeal filed by this appellant-accused No.6 and he

also deserves for the bail on parity since the accused

No.6 and co-accused Nos.1 to 5 and 8 in the aforesaid

case are on similar footing for the offences alleged in

Crime No.75/2020 registered by Nayakanahatti Police

Station, Chitradurga District.

4. The co-accused Nos.1 to 5 and 8 have already

been granted bail by the court below by considering

all the materials secured by the investigating agency

in Crime No.75/2020 registered by Nayakanahatti

Police Station where the FIR has been registered on

17.08.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections

302, 396 and 201 of IPC, 1860. But later on, the

offences under Section SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 has

been incorporated in the charge sheet filed by the

Investigating Officer against the accused.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant in this

matter submitted that the complainant and accused

No.6 belongs to the same community. Therefore,

question of incorporating offences under special

enactment of SC/ST (POA), Act 1989 does not arise

for invoking the charge sheet filed by the

Investigating Officer against the accused.

6. However, this appeal has been preferred by

challenging the order passed by the trial court in

Spl.C.(SC/ST) No.29/2020 relating to the bail petition

filed by the accused No.6 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C

by urging the various grounds. But the said bail

petition filed by the accused No.6 came to be

dismissed on 10-2-2020 when the co-accused Nos.1

to 5 and 8 were granted bail before the trial court by

consideration of the same materials secured by the

Investigating Officer in the course of investigation, in

order to lay the charge sheet against the accused

persons who are in the similar footing in the alleged

offence. Though the appeal has been preferred under

the relevant provisions of Section 14A of the SC & ST

(POA) Act, 1989 by challenging the order in

Spl.C.(SC/ST) No.29/2020 dated 10.02.2021, merely

because the appeal has been preferred by the

appellant/accused No.6, he cannot be deprived or

declined to filing one more bail petition before the trial

court under the relevant provisions of the Code of

Criminal procedure and inserting the provisions under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. wherein the petition for seeking

bail has been intact in the Criminal Procedure Code.

Even the offence is under the said enactment, there is

no bar for successive bail petition filed by the accused

before the trial court by making use of the provisions

of Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by urging the grounds and

even though in other special circumstances or to show

the developmental circumstances for consideration of

the successive bail petition filed by the accused.

When there is no bar for filing the successive bail

petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the accused

who is the appellant before this Court there is no bar

for consideration of the prayer made by the learned

counsel for the appellant in order to file successive

bail petition before the court below in

Spl.C.(SCST)No.29/2020. However, in this appeal it

is said that merely because appeal has been preferred

by the appellant (accused No.6), at this stage it

cannot be going into the details and involvement of

the accused and also severity of the case and

commission of offence narrated in the charge sheet is

proved, it does not require detailed consideration of

the materials.

7. Keeping in view the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the appellant, it is deemed proper

for consideration of submission of learned counsel for

the appellant seeking permission for disposal of this

appeal giving an opportunity to the appellant/accused

No.6 to file successive bail petition under Section 439

of Cr.P.C. before the trial court.

8. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby disposed of

in terms of the aforesaid reasoning. However, it is

made clear that the appellant/accused No.1 be

permitted to file successive bail petition before the

court below by making use of the provisions of Section

439 of Cr.P.C. by urging the grounds based upon the

materials secured by the Investigating Officer and also

urging the developmental circumstances for filing

successive bail petition.

9. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the

appellant submits that co-accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 8

have already been granted bail by the trial court by

invoking provisions of Section 439 r/w. 167 (2) of

Cr.P.C.

This submission made by the learned counsel for

the appellant is placed on record.

It is made clear that the trial court shall not be

influenced by the observations made in this appeal for

disposal of the fresh bail petition to be filed by the

appellant under the relevant provisions of the Criminal

Procedure Code and the same shall be disposed of on

merits, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cm/-