Mr. Arunmanoraj R vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1835 Kant

                                  1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.361 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

Mr.ArunManoraj.R
S/o M.G.Ramaiah
Aged about 34 years
R/at No.83
DiasisAnugraha
Apartment
KSFC Layout
Lingarajapuram
Bengaluru-560084(Accused No.25)
                                               ...Appellant
(By Sri.C.H.Hanumantharaya.,Senior Advocate)

AND:

1.     State of Karnataka
       By Devarajeevanahalli
       Police Station
       Bengaluru City
       Represented by.
       (State Public Prosecutor
       High Court Building
       Bangalore-01)

2.     Mr.Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy
       S/o Late.Ramaiah
       Aged about 50 years
       MLA, Pulakeshinagara Constituency
                               2


     No.32, KavalByrasandra
     R.T.Nagar Post
     Bengaluru City-560032.
                                          ...Respondents
(Sri.Thejesh.P. HCGP a/w Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, Spl.P.P.
for R1; Sri.Murthy.D.Naik Adv., for R2)

       This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of
the SC/ST (POA) Act, praying this court to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in Spl.Case No.744/2020 arising out of
Cr.No.219/2020 of Devarajeevanahalli PS., registered on
14.08.2020 now being investigated by the Anti Terrorist
Cell, for the offence p/u/s 143, 144, 145, 435, 436, 395,
447, 448, 427, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC and Section 2 of
Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property
Act.

      This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission this
day, the Court delivered the following:

                       JUDGMENT

This is an appeal by accused no.25 who is charge

sheeted for the offences under Section 143, 144, 145,

447, 448, 435, 436, 395, 427, 212, 120-B r/w 149 of

IPC and Section 2 of The Prevention of Destruction

and Loss of Property Act, 1981 and Section 3(2) (iii),

(iv), (v), (va) of The Scheduled Castes and Schedules

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), 1989 and Section

25(1B) (b) of Indian Arms Act, 1959.

2. The earlier application filed by the very same

appellant before this Court has been dismissed by the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.4606/2020

dated 5.11.2020. In view of the circular issued by the

Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the matter was

placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice to secure an

order as to whether the successive bail applications

filed by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. could

be entertained by this Court having roster of the

Special Court. The Hon'ble Chief Justice by a special

order dated 15.3.2021 has directed to post the matter

before this court and hence, I have heard Sri. C.H.

Hanumantharaya, Senior Advocate for the appellant

and Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, Special P.P., appearing

on behalf of State - respondent no.1 and Sri. Murthy

D. Naik, advocate for respondent no.2- complainant.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

has produced copy of the order passed in

Crl.A.No.358/2021 whereby the applications filed by

the co-accused viz., accused no.33 has been allowed

by this court and would submit that identical

allegations having been leveled against accused no.25

he may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

4. The prayer is seriously opposed by Sri.

P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the

respondent no.1 and in para 14 of the objection

statement, it is contended as under:

"14. It has been contended by the appellant that the 2nd respondent has used the incident for his political gains and to benefit his political career.

It is submitted that the said contention is baseless and denied as false. It is submitted that the accused persons in the above case have caused huge destruction

and loss to the property of the 2nd respondent. Further, valuables and other important documents have been destroyed and stolen from the house of the 2nd respondent causing huge loss. It is submitted that the entire house of the 2nd respondent has been burnt down by the accused persons. As such, the contention of the appellant that the 2nd respondent who is the sitting member of the legislative assembly for consecutive terms would have the need to use the said incident for his personal gains is denied as false. As such, the petition filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected.

It is submitted that CW 4,5,6,9,12,17,18,19,20,21 and 22 state the role of the appellant herein in the said crime and that he has instigated the other accused persons to commit the said crime and cause harm to the 2nd respondent/1st informant. Further appellant/accused no.25 herein has instigated the other

accused persons to attack the house of the 2nd respondent/1st informant and cause harm to him. As such the petition filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected."

5. Sri. Murthy D.Naik, learned counsel for

respondent no.2 has seriously opposed the appeal

contending that the Co-ordiante Bench of this Court

having already held that entire incident having taken

place on account of the conspiracy hatched by the

accused persons along with this accused, this

appellant cannot be extended the benefit of the order

made in favour of accused no.33. Further in

Paragraphs 7, 9 and 11, it is contended that:

7. In this appeal the Appellant is seeking for his release on Bail in the above said crime and as such is his 5th attempt for bail. The details of the bail applications filed by the present Appellant so far is as under:-

Court before which Sl.

the Bail Application Case No. Stage Result Date No was filed Pending Crl.Mis.No.4556 1 Special Court investiga Dismissed 15.09.2020 /2020 tion After Crl.Pet 2 High Court charge Dismissed 05.11.2020 No.4606/2020 sheet

After Dismissed Spl.CC 3 Special Court Charge As 28.12.2020 No.744/2020 Sheet withdrawn After Supplem Sp CC No. 4 Special Court entary Dismissed 744/2020 16.02.2021 charge sheet

9. The offences alleged against this Appellant are serious in nature, some of which have a prescribed sentence of imprisonment for life. This Hon'ble Court by order dated 5.11.2020, while dismissing Criminal Petition No.4606/2020 filed by the present Appellant and Accused No.33, has been pleased to observe that there is prima-facie case against them and as such denied bail to them. The copy of the order dated 05.11.2020, passed in Criminal Petition No.4606/2020 by this court is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE- R2(A). Further this Hon'ble Court in Criminal petition No.5785/2020 filed by the Accused No.7 and in Criminal Petition No.5241/2020 filed by the Accused No.23, after charge-sheet, passed a common order dated 23.11.2020, whereby it was pleased to reject their Bail Applications after taking into consideration the

various allegations made against the said Accused in the Chargesheet.

11. There is absolutely no change in circumstances warranting grant of bail to the Appellant. The Appellant has suppressed material facts in this Appeal. The impugned order does not require interference as it is sound and proper. The perusal of the grounds urged in the Appeal Memo would indicate that the Appellant has canvassed the very same grounds which have already been considered by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Petiton No.4606/2020, which cannot be once again looked into by this Hon'ble Court. Further the Appellant has strongly relied on the various orders passed by this Hon'ble Court granting bail to Accused Nos.58,57 and 59."

6. I have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the

charge sheet papers, I find that the appellant herein

stands on par with accused no.33, who has been

enlarged on bail by this court on 16.3.2021 in

Crl.A.No.358 of 2021. The appellant has been

implicated in the alleged offence on the basis of

conspiracy. According to the prosecution, accused

no.57 and other accused conveyed their decision of

conspiracy through accused no.25 (the appellant

herein) and accused no.33, 35 and others. There are

no allegations whatsoever that the appellant herein

was either a party to the alleged conspiracy or an

abettor to the commission of the offence. It is also

not the case of the prosecution that the appellant was

actually involved in the commission of the offence.

The only material relied on by the prosecution in proof

of the complicity of the appellant are the statements

of CWs-4,5,6,9,12,17,19,20,21 and 22. The gist of

the statements of these witnesses is that three

months earlier to the alleged incident of riot, during

the COVID time, there was a meeting at Hasina Hall

which was attended to by accused no.57 Sri. Sampath

Raj and Sri. D.K.Shiva Kumar and during that

meeting, the ration kits were distributed. The further

statements of the witnesses read that in the said

meeting, the appellant herein and accused no.33 were

distributing ration kits. Other than that, there are no

allegations that the appellant was a party to the

alleged conspiracy between accused No.57,58,59 and

60. In the said circumstances, accused no.33, 57, 58

and 59 having been already enlarged on bail by this

Court, in my view, on the ground of parity as well as

on account of changed circumstances discussed

above, the appellant is also entitled to be released on

bail.

7. It is also necessary to note that even though

charge sheet is laid alleging commission of offences

under section 3(2),(iii),(iv),(v),(va) of The Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, yet, there is no dispute with regard to the fact

that the appellant herein is also a member of

Scheduled Caste. As such, the charge under section

3(2),(iii),(iv),(v),(va) of The Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

leading to life sentence cannot stand against the

appellant. With regard to the charge under section

395 IPC is concerned, there are no materials to

connect the appellant to the alleged act of dacoity. On

the other hand, the appellant is sought to be sent up

for trial on the specific allegation that he being the

follower of accused No.57 was also present during the

conspiracy that had taken place three months earlier

to the alleged incident. It is not the case of the

prosecution that the appellant was in any way

instrumental in setting fire to the house of respondent

No.2 causing destruction of properties. Having regard

to the nature of accusations levelled against the

appellant, there cannot be any apprehension of the

appellant tampering with the evidence.

8. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed.

The order dated 16.02.2021 passed by learned LXX

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in

Spl.C.C.No.744/2020 is set-aside.

The application filed by the appellant

herein/accused No.25 under section 439 Cr.P.C.

before the trial court is allowed.

i) The appellant - Mr. Arun Manoraj R.

is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bond in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

ii) He shall regularly appear before the trial court on every date of hearing

without fail unless exempted by orders of the Court.

iii) He shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.

iv) He shall not get himself involved in similar offences.

v) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court until conclusion of trial without prior permission.

If any of these conditions are violated, liberty is

reserved to the prosecution to move for cancellation of

bail in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sd