Pradeepa V vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3494 Kant

                             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.1248/2021

BETWEEN:

PRADEEPA V,
S/O VENKATARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.818,
7TH MAIN ROAD,
NARMADA NADI ROAD,
BRUNDAVANAGARA PIPE LINE,
SRINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 050.                   ...APPELLANT

            (BY SRI A.N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       BY BIDADI POLICE,
       REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
       BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.     SMT. BHAGYA,
       W/O LATE NAGARAJU,
       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.105,
       MARUTHI CIRCLE, SRINAGAR,
       BANGALORE - 560 071.                  ... RESPONDENTS

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



     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING THIS COURT TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 21.06.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN
CRL.MISC.NO.379/2021 AND ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN SPL.CASE
NO.47/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
302, 201 READ WITH 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF
SC/ST(POA) ACT IN (CR.NO.91/2021 OF BIDADI POLICE).

      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, the appellant is accused No.2 in

Crl.Misc.No.379/2021 on the file of the learned I Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. By order dated

21.06.2021, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the appellant's

application for bail made under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Hence,

this appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

The respondent No.2 has been served with notice, but there is

no representation on her behalf.

3. The incident leading to file the charge-sheet is said

to have taken place on 21.03.2021. The name of the deceased

is Bharath, son of respondent No.2. The case of the prosecution

is that the deceased Bharath used to send messages to accused

No.4, namely Pavithra. For this reason, accused No.1 took

objection and then on 21.03.2021, accused No.1 along with

others, including the appellant is said to have abused the

deceased taking the name of the caste and then assaulted him.

Accused No.1 inflicted injury to the deceased with a knife and as

a result, he died.

4. If the prosecution case is analyzed, it becomes clear

that probably for the reason that the deceased used to send

messages to accused No.4, there might have existed some

differences between accused No.1 and the deceased. The

allegation of inflicting injury with knife is against accused No.1.

Insofar as the appellant is concerned, what is stated is that he

assaulted with his hands. Though there are eye witnesses to the

incident, but in the circumstances narrated above, there are no

prima facie materials against the appellant as regards inflicting a

fatal blow resulting in death.

5. If the impugned order is perused, it appears that the

Trial Court has not applied its mind to the facts. It has just

relied on the judgment of the Orissa High Court and rejected the

application for bail. While deciding the application for bail, the

Trial Courts are supposed to apply their mind to the facts placed

before it to come to the conclusion whether there exists prima

facie materials or not.

6. It also appears that the appellant has no criminal

antecedents. In this view, I find that the order impugned cannot

be sustained. Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) The order passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara dated 21.06.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.379/2021 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