Dileep vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11507 Kant

                              1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2022

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

           CRIMINAL APPEAL.No.1127 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Dileep,
S/o Umesh,
Aged about 21 years
R/at Aruru Village,
Chikkaballapura Taluk,
Chikkaballapur-562101.                       ... Appellant

(By Sri. S. Mahesh, Advocate)

AND:

1.      State of Karnataka,
        State by Gudibande P.S.,
        Represented by
        High Court Govt. Pleader,
        High Court of Karnataka,
        Bangalore-560 001.

2.      Smt. Manjulamma,
        W/o A.C. Ramanjineya,
        Aged about 45 years,
        R/at Avalnagenahalli,
        Chikkaballapura Taluk,
        Chikkaballapura-562101.            ...Respondents

(By Sri. K.Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1:
Sri. S.R. Sreeprasad, Advocate for R2)

      This criminal appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2)
of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the impugned
order passed by the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge
at   Chikkaballapur   in   Crl.    Misc.No.5/2022   dated:
                               2


28.02.2022 and enlarge the appellant on bail in Crime
No.43/2021 (now in Spl. S.C.No.46/2021) for the offences
punishable under Sections. 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 324,
302, 307, 114, 109, 120B, of IPC along with Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of SC and ST
(POA) Act, and etc.

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

                           JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Mahesh S. for the appellant, learned

Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri

S.R.Sreeprasad for respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A of the

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant is

accused No.10 in Spl.S.C.No.46/2021 on the file of

the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Chikkaballapur.

3. The matter pertains to killing of one

Ramanjineya, the husband of the first informant,

namely, Manjulamma. The allegation against the

appellant is that he was present at the spot with other

accused, namely, A1 - Chikka Manjunatha, A3 -

Aravinda and A6 - Girish when they were assaulting

the deceased to death. Though Sri Mahesh tries to

make out a case for bail referring to the statement

given by the wife of the deceased under Section 164

of Cr.P.C., it remains a fact that accused Nos. 1, 3 and

6 - main assailants have not been granted bail. The

eyewitnesses have given a statement disclosing the

presence of the appellant at the time of the incident.

In this view, it is difficult to consider the bail

application of the appellant at this stage.

4. Sri Mahesh now submits that the trial has

been fixed to commence from 29.08.2022 and

therefore, the appellant be permitted to move the

Sessions Court for bail after the prime witnesses, i.e.,

CW1 to CW5 are examined.

5. Accordingly, liberty as sought for by Sri

Mahesh is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

The appellant is also given liberty to raise all

grounds which are available to him according to law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cm/-