Sunil @ Masale vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11423 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 17 T H DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1412 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1.   Sunil @ Masale
     S/o Sidd araju
     Aged about 24 years
     Residing at I Cross
     Indiranagara, Bid ad i town
     Ramanag ara Taluk and District
     Pin-562 109.

2.   Sridhara @ Kend a
     S/o Kullegowda
     Aged about 31 years
     Resid ent of Ittanahalli Kopp alu
     Kirug avalu Hobli
     Mavalli Taluk, Mandya District
     Pin-571 430.
                                         ...Appellants
(By Sri A.N. Rad hakrishna, Advocate)

AND:

1.   The State of Karnataka
     By Bidadi Police, Bid adi
     Represented by the
     State Pub lic Prosecutor
     Hig h Court Build ings
     Bang alore-560 001.

2.   Smt. Sharad a
     W/o. Late Kumar V.
     Aged about 29 years
                                :: 2 ::


      R/o Muthurayanagudipalya
      Villag e, Bidadi Hobli
      Ramanag ara Taluk
      Ramanag ara District.
                                                     ...Respondents
(By Sri K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1;
 Sri N. Srid har, Advocate for R2 - Absent)

      This   Criminal      Appeal     is    filed   under   Section
14(A)(2)     of   SC/ST    (POA)      Act     Cr.P.C.   praying   to
enlarg e them on bail, in Cr. No.158/2021 of Bidadi
Police for offence punishable und er Section 143, 147,
148, 302, 201-B, 212 read with Section 149 of IPC
and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act now pending
on the file of the learned I Ad ditional District and
Sessions Judge, Ramanag ara.

      This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission
this d ay, the Court d elivered the following:

                           JUDGMENT

Heard Sri A.N.Radhakrishna, learned counsel

for the appellants and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section

14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ['SC/ST Act' :: 3 ::

for short]. The appellants are accused No.5 and 6.

By order dated 24.08.2021, the court below

rejected their application for bail under Section

439 of Cr.P.C. Hence this appeal.

3. The prosecution case is that on

04.05.2021, in between 8.00 and 8.15am,

pursuant to conspiracy among the accused, one

Kumar was killed. The motive appears to be that

the deceased did not share the commission

amount with accused No.1 and therefore accused

No.1 conspired with other accused for eliminating

Kumar.

4. From the FIR itself it becomes clear that

the incident might have taken place in the

background of monetary transaction between the

deceased and accused No.1 and not in connection

with the offence under the provisions of Atrocities

Act is forthcoming.

:: 4 ::

5. So far as the statement of Venkataramu,

the brother of deceased is perused, what appears

is that the first appellant i.e., accused No.5 was

standing near the car and that his statement does

not disclose that he inflicted injuries to deceased.

Moreover according to the appellants' counsel, the

first appellant is mentally insane. On 02.08.2022,

the Government Pleader was directed to obtain

report from NIMHANS, where the first appellant

had taken treatment. Today, learned Government

Pleader produces a report which is to the effect

that the first appellant was suffering from mental

disorder and was taking treatment at NIMHANS.

The Psychiatrist has observed that though there is

improvement, still the appellant No.1 is not

completely cured of his mental disorder. For these

reasons, appellant No.1 can be admitted to bail.

6. So far as appellant No.2 is concerned,

there are sufficient materials against him :: 5 ::

indicating his involvement in the commission of

offence. In this view, the appeal cannot be

entertained so far as appellant No.2 is concerned

as there are materials against him. Therefore

from the above discussions, I find a case to partly

allow the appeal. Hence the following:

ORDER Appeal is allowed in part.

The order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara dated 24.08.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.583/2021 on the application of appellant No.1 under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is set aside. The said application in so far as it relates to appellant No.1/accused No.5 is allowed.

The appeal stands dismissed insofar as appellant No.2/accused No.6 is concerned.

The appellant No.1 is admitted to bail on obtaining from him a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) and :: 6 ::

providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellant No.1 is also subjected to following conditions:-

i. He shall not tamper with the evidence collected by the investigating officer and threaten the witnesses.

ii. He shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial.

iii. Till conclusion of the trial, the appellant shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police Station once in 15 days, preferably on a Sunday between 9 am and 12 noon.

iv. He shall not get involved in any other criminal case/s in future. In case of any FIR is registered against them, the same will be considered for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-