Shankrayya S/O Maharudrayya ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11329 Kant

                            1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 11 T H DAY OF AUGUST 2022
                          BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100322 OF 2022

   BETWEEN:

   1.     SHANKRAYYA S/O MAHARUDRAYYA
          HIREMATH, A GE: 52 YEARS ,
          OCC:BUSINESS , R/O HAN GARAKI,
          TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD-580105.

   2.     KALLAPPA S/ O BALAPPA HULAGANNA VAR,
          AGE: 52 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
          R/O HAN GARAKI, TQ & DIST DHARW AD-580105.

                                           ...A PPELLANTS

   (BY SHRI A .M.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

   AND:

   1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
          THROUGH GARAG POLI CE,
          R/BY STATE PUBLI C PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
          DHARWAD BEN CH, DHARWAD,

   2.     IRAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA DODDAMANI,
          AGE: 36 YEARS , OCC: COOLIE,
          R/O THIMMAPUR, TQ & DIST:DHARW AD-581105.

                                        ... RES PONDENTS

   (BY SRI. PRAS HAN TH V. MOGA LI, HCGP FOR R-1;
   NOTICE T O R- 2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRES ENTED)
                                2




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.14-A OF
SC/ST (PREV ENTION OF ATROCIT IES) ACT, 1989
PRAYING TO A LLOW THIS APPEAL A ND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER    DATED    14.07.2022 PAS SED  BY    THE   II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIA L
JUDGE    AT   DHA RWAD    IN  GARAG   P.S .  CRIME
NO.77/ 2022 (REGI STERED IN CRIME NO.0077/ 2022 BY
GARAG POLICE) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/SEC.302, 201, 34 OF IPC AND U/SEC.3(2) ( v-a) OF
SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT )
AMENDMENT      BILL   2015,  AND    ENLARGE     THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3 ON REGULAR BAIL
PENDING INV ESTIGATION AND TRIA L OF THE CASE, I N
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS CRIMINAL A PPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, T HE COURT DELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants-

accused Nos.2 and 3 challenging the order

dated 14.07.2022 passed in Criminal

Miscellaneous No.390/2022 by the learned II

Addl. District and Sessions & Special Judge,

Dharwad, (hereinafter referred to as

'Sessions/Special Judge', for short),

whereunder bail application of the appellants

filed under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the

'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking regular bail in

Crime No.77/2022 of Garag Police Station

registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 302, 201 R/w Section 34 of Indian

Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the

'I.P.C.', for brevity) and Section 3 (2) (va) of

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(hereinafter referred to as the 'SC & ST

(P.O.A.) Act' for brevity) came to be rejected.

    2.     Heard             learned           counsel          Shri

A.M.Malipatil,         for         the        appellants        and

Shri Prashant      V.Mogali,             learned     HCGP        for

respondent No.1-State. In spite of service of

notice, respondent No.2-complainant remained

absent and unrepresented.

3. The case of the prosecution is that,

one Irappa S/o Rudrappa Doddamani resident

of Timmapur village of Dharwad taluk has filed

a complaint stating that his sister Kasturevva

got married to one Ramappa Kelagade

(deceased) of Hangarki village and they have

two female children. It is further stated that

the said Kasturevva had illicit relationship with

one Hanumanthappa Jummanavar-accused No.1

since 4 years and due to the same, her

husband was addicted to alcohol and he used

to harass his wife and children, after

consuming alcohol. The Hanumanthappa-

accused No.1 had given some money to

deceased Ramappa as advance and kept him

for work into his Grain Machine. That on

16.05.2022, the Ramappa's brother wife has

called to his mobile and told that the Ramappa

was suffering from stomach ache. Therefore,

the complainant called the said person and

when enquired, she was told that Ramappa

died and his funeral will be at 11-00 p.m, in

Hangaraki village. Thereafter, the complainant

and elders of the village went to Hangaraki

village to attend the funeral, at that time, the

2 n d daughter of his sister namely Sonu aged

about 13 years came over to complainant and

told that his father was murdered. Then the

complainant has asked his sister regarding the

cause of death of Ramappa, but she was not

disclosed anything and he was not allowed to

go near Ramappa's dead body and hurriedly

dead body was taken to burial ground. When

the dead body was on funeral pyre then also

not allowed the complainant to see the dead

body properly and poured kerosene and set

fire. After seeing all this when complainant

asked his sister, she told that when Ramappa

was not been to work, accused No.1-

Hanumanthappa came over to their house and

took the Ramappa to work by scolding and

bearing him. At about 5:00 p.m, accused No.1-

Hanumanthappa came and told that her

husband Ramappa was suffering from stomach

ache and need to take him to hospital and

asked her to come. Therefore, she and her

husband's brother Shettappa and Kareppa

together went in accused No.1-Hanumantappa's

vehicle. When they reach near Kelageri, they

found her husband was unconscious and

further she said that her husband died near

Kelageri bridge while going to the hospital. She

also requested the complainant to leave this

mater and stated that if the incident is

disclosed the villagers will not allow her to lead

her life. After inquiry in the village, the

complainant suspected the death of Ramappa

and therefore, he filed a complaint and the

said complaint came to be registered in Crime

No.77/2022 for the offenses punishable under

Sections 302, 201 R/w Sec.34 of IPC and under

Section 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act. The

appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 came to be

arrested on 14.06.2022 during the course of

investigation and they are in judicial custody.

The appellants filed Criminal Miscellaneous

No.390/2022 seeking bail and the same came

to be rejected by learned Sessions/Special

Judge vide order dated 14.07.2022. Therefore,

the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 have

challenged the said impugned order in the

present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants

would contend that the alleged incident had

occurred on 16.5.2022 and complaint came to

be filed on 18.5.2022 and there is a delay in

filing the complaint and the appellants have

been falsely implicated. It is his further

submission that there is no mentioning the

names of these appellants in the complaint and

there are no allegations of their involvement in

the murder of deceased Ramappa. It is his

further submission that the appellants are

ready to cooperate with the investigating

officer in the investigation. Without considering

all these aspects, learned Sessions/Special

Judge has passed the impugned order, which

requires interference by this Court. With these,

he prayed to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned High Court

Government Pleader would contend that the

investigation is still in progress and role of

these appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 requires

to be ascertained only after filing of the charge

sheet. It is his further submission that there

are eye witnesses to the incident, whose

statements has to be recorded by the

investigating officer. If the appellants are

granted bail, they will hamper the investigation

and tamper the prosecution witnesses. It is his

further submission that considering all these

aspects learned Sessions/Special Judge has

rightly rejected the bail application of the

appellants and it does not requires any

interference by this Court. With these, he

prayed to reject the petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for

the appellants and learned HCGP for

respondent No.1/State, this Court has gone

through the F.I.R, complaint, remand

application and the impugned order.

7. A case came to be registered in Crime

No.77/2022 against accused No.1-

Hanumanthappa on the complaint of Irappa S/o

Rudrappa Doddamani regarding the death of

deceased Ramappa. There are no allegations of

involvement of accused Nos.2 and 3, who are

appellants herein in the complaint filed by the

said Irappa Doddamani. On perusal of the

remand application, it appears that these

appellants, who are accused Nos.2 and 3 came

to be arrested after recording further

statements of complainant. It is mentioned in

the remand application that the complainant

gave further statement stating that his brother

deceased Ramappa fell from the tractor and

died and without informing the same to the

police, accused Nos.2 and 3, who are

appellants herein have conspired with accused

No.1 and burnt the dead body of the deceased

Ramappa. On looking to the entire remand

application, there are no allegations of

involvement of these appellants in the murder

of the deceased Ramappa.

8. On considering the said averments in

the remand application, what offence attracted

against these appellants is under Section 201

of IPC. The punishment for the said offence is

not death or imprisonment for life. The

appellants have undertaken to cooperate with

the police in the investigation. Without

considering all these aspects, learned

Sessions/Special Judge has rejected their bail

application, which requires interference by this

Court.

    9.        The        main       apprehension        of    the

prosecution         is    that,      if   the   appellants    are

granted bail, they will hamper the investigation

and tamper the prosecution witnesses can be

met with by imposing stringent conditions.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the

case and submission of the counsel, this Court

is of the view that the impugned order passed

by the learned Sessions/Special Judge is not

sustainable, requires to be set-aside and the

appellants-accused Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for

grant of bal subject to certain terms and

conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

The impugned order dated 14.07.2022

passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.390/2022

by the learned II Addl.District and Sessions &

Special Judge, Dharwad is set aside. The

Criminal Miscellaneous No.390/2022 filed by

the appellants-accused Nos.2 and 3 under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C stands allowed.

Consequently, the appellants/accused

Nos.2 and 3 shall be released on bail in Crime

No.77/2022 of Garag Police Station, subject to

the following conditions:

i) The appellants shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum

to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

ii) The appellants shall not indulge in hampering the investigation and tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The appellants shall attend the jurisdictional police station on 1 s t and 3 r d Sunday of every month between 10:00 a.m, and 2:00 p.m, and mark their presence for a period of three months or till filing of the final report whichever is earlier.

iv) The appellants shall cooperate with the investigating officer in the investigation.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AM