Karnataka High Court
Sarvesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2022
Bench: K.S.Mudagal
Crl.A.No.45/2022
1
M
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.45/2022
BETWEEN:
SARVESH
S/O. PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO.540, NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL
VEERASANDRA VILLAGE
ATTIBELE HOBLI, HEBBAGODI
BENGALURU- 560 070 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.B.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU- 560 001
2. MANJUNATH.R.
S/O. LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE NO.645
NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE
VEERASANDRA ELECTRONIC CITY
BENGALURU- 560 010 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC & ST (POA)
ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
Crl.A.No.45/2022
2
M
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.1521/2021 AND ENLARGE THE
APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.39/2017 REGISTERED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the rejection of his bail application,
accused No.3 in Special Case No.114/2017 on the file of
II Additional District & Sessions Judge & Special Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru has preferred the
above appeal.
2. The appellant and six others were prosecuted
in Special Case No.114/2017 on the basis of the charge
sheet filed by respondent No.1 police in Crime
No.39/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections
302, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections
3(1)(r) and 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as
follows:
Crl.A.No.45/2022
M
The victim Srinivas belonged to the Scheduled
Caste. CW.1 is his brother. Accused Nos.1, 6 and others
committed murder of Muniya a nephew of Srinivas. In
that murder case, accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 were sent to
judicial custody. After their release on bail, along with
other accused they conspired to commit murder of
Srinivas. In execution of such conspiracy on 09.02.2017
at 4.45 p.m., when Srinivas was speaking to CW.22 near
Garment Factory at Electronic City, accused No.2 dragged
Srinivas upto the gate of IBAB Company, stabbed him
with dagger and committed his murder. When CW.2 and
CW.22 went to his rescue, the appellant and accused
No.2 threatened them.
4. The appellant is in judicial custody since
16.02.2017. The appellant filed Crl.P.No.5562/2018
seeking bail. The said petition was dismissed by this Court
on 19.12.2018. He again filed bail petition before the trial
Court in Cri.Misc.No.1521/2021. The trial Court by the
impugned order dismissed the petition on the ground that
Crl.A.No.45/2022
M
there is prima-facie material to show the involvement of
the appellant in the crime.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant seeks to
assail the impugned order on the following grounds:
(i) There is delay in trial;
(ii) This Court has granted bail to accused Nos.1
and 4, therefore on the ground of parity, the appellant is
entitled for bail; &
(iii) The mother of the appellant is suffering from
several medical conditions. Therefore presence of the
appellant is required to attend to her.
6. This Court dismissed Crl.P.No.5562/2018
considering the merits of the case. Therefore the
appellant can seek bail only if there is any changed
circumstance. Nothing is produced to substantiate the
medical ground of the mother of the appellant or that she
is solely depending on him.
7. So far the ground of parity, accused Nos.1
and 4 are not facing the allegations of assault
Crl.A.No.45/2022
M
on victim with deadly weapons. The allegations of causing
grievous injuries leading to the death of the victim are
only against the appellant and accused No.3.
8. Accused Nos.1 and 4 were granted bail in
Crl.P.No.6968/2017 and Crl.P.No.7068/2017 in November
and October 2017. Crl.P.No.5562/2018 was rejected
thereafter. Then the appellant filed Crl.P.No.4828/2020
and withdrew that on 21.10.2020. Under the
circumstances, the parity is not applicable.
9. So far the delay in trial, the order of the trial
Court shows that the accused Nos.6 and 7 could not be
secured and case against them was split up. For about
two years, due to Covid-19 pandemic as known to all,
there was very slow progress in the trial of cases.
Nothing can be imputed to prosecution for such delay.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant relying on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of
Crl.A.No.45/2022
M
India v. K.A.Najeeb1 contends that the delay in trial is a
ground to grant bail.
11. Reading of the said judgment shows that the
said appeal arose out of the order granting bail.
Consideration of an appeal for cancellation and grant of
bail are not one and the same. Therefore the said
judgment cannot be justifiably applied to the facts and
circumstances of this case.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar
Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi)2 has held that in while
deciding the bail application in crimes like murder mere
fact of the accused being in custody for more than one
year is not a relevant consideration.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not
find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order of
the trial Court. Therefore the appeal is dismissed.
(2021) 3 SCC 713
(2018) 12 SCC 129
Crl.A.No.45/2022
M
The trial Court is hereby requested to conduct trial
on day-to-day basis and dispose of the matter as
expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KSR
