Karnataka High Court

Rangaswamy N D vs State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2022

Bench: K.S.Mudagal

                                        CRL.A.No.1783/2021


                             1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1783/2021
BETWEEN:
RANGASWAMY N D
S/O DODDAMARI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NAVILE VILLAGE
ATHAGURU HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA-571 433                       ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.MOHANKUMAR.D, ADV. FOR
SRI.CHANDAN.H.B, ADV.)

AND:
1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY KESTHUR POLICE
       MANDYA DISTRICT
       REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
       PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       HIGH COURT BUILDING
       BANGALORE-01
2.     SMT.AMBUJAKSHI
       S/O RAVINDRA
       R/AT NAVILE VILLAGE
       AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
       ATHAGURU HOBLI
       MADDUR TALUK
       MANDYA-571 433                ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.S.HEGDE, SPP II FOR R.1
SRI.ROSHAN.H.C, ADV. FOR R.2)
                                             CRL.A.No.1783/2021


                             2


      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)(2) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 13.10.2021 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.65/2021 BY
THE TRIAL COURT AND GRANT BAIL TO ACCUSED NO.4 IN
CR.NO.1/2021 (SPL.C.NO.65/2021) REGISTERED BY THE
KESTURU POLICE ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 143, 120B, 302,
201 R/W 149 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3(2)(v) OF SC &
ST ATROCITIES ACT AND ETC.,

      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.4 in Spl.Case No.65/2021 on the file of the V

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya has preferred

the above appeal.

2. The appellant and 5 others are facing trial in

Spl. Case No.65/2021 for the offences punishable under

Sections 109, 143, 120B, 302, 201 read with Section 149

IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment

Act, 2015 ('SC/ST Act' for short) on the basis of the

charge-sheet filed by respondent No.1 Police in Crime

No.1/2021 of their Police station.

CRL.A.No.1783/2021

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as

follows:

That due to quarrel between the mother of deceased

Ravindra and the sister in law of accused No.1, sister in

law of accused No.1 committed suicide. Deceased

Ravindra and his mother were prosecuted in the said case

and they were acquitted. Accused No.2 and appellant had

ill will against Ravindra regarding contracts in building

construction works. Therefore, accused Nos.1,2 and

appellant conspired to commit murder of Ravindra. For

that purpose, they hired accused Nos.2, 3, 6 and juvenile

conflict in law. In execution of such conspiracy, on

02.01.2021 at about 9.30 a.m. accused Nos.2, 3, 6 and

juvenile conflict in law assaulted Ravindra near his land in

Navile village of Maddur Taluk with iron rod, stone and

committed his murder. To screen the evidence of offence,

the accused tied a stone to the dead body and dropped

that in Shimsha river.

CRL.A.No.1783/2021

4. On finding the dead body, wife of Ravindra

filed complaint against 9 persons. The Investigating Officer

filed 'B' report in respect of accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 9

shown in the FIR. In the FIR appellant was shown as

accused No.6. The appellant was arrested on 06.01.2021

and he is in judicial custody.

5. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected

his bail application on the following grounds:

i) The offence alleged against the appellant is

heinous one;

ii) There is prima facie case against the appellant;

iii) The case is still at the stage of trial, if bail is

granted he is likely to tamper the witnesses.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

the case is based purely on circumstantial evidence, even

those circumstances are very weak. He submits that as

per the charge sheet records themselves, the appellant

also belongs to Scheduled Caste, therefore, Section 3 of

the SC/ST Act is not applicable. He further submits that CRL.A.No.1783/2021

the appellant is ready to abide by any conditions that may

be imposed by this Court.

7. Sri V.S.Hegde, learned SPP-II and Sri Roshan

H.C., learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the

allegations against the appellant are heinous and there is

prima facie material against the appellant to show his

involvement in the crime. They further submit that having

regard to the gravity of the offence and the material on

record, the trial Court has rightly rejected the bail petition

and that does not warrant interference by this Court.

8. In support of his submissions, learned SPP II

relies on the judgment in Hariram Bhambhi vs.

Satyanarayan and another1 with regard to the principles

for grant of bail. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble

Supreme Court extracted its earlier judgment in Ramesh

Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana

[(2021)6 SCC 230]. As per the said judgment, the

Crl.A.No.1278/2021 (D.D. 29.10.2021) CRL.A.No.1783/2021

factors to be considered while passing the bail order are as

follows:

       i)       the facts of the case;

       ii)      the nature of allegations;

       iii)     gravity of offences and

       iv)      role attributed to the accused.

9. The facts of the case are already narrated

above. As per the charge sheet records themselves, the

appellant was not the actual assailant. He was only a

conspirator. Admittedly there are no direct witnesses to

the case. The circumstance relied on by the prosecution

are:

i) There was motive for the appellant for

commission of murder;

ii) The appellant was last seen with accused No.2;

iii) Thereafter CW.3 saw the victim proceeding

towards the place where the appellant and accused No.2

were seen together;

CRL.A.No.1783/2021

iv) The call detail records of the cell phone of the

appellant showed the location of the scene of offence and

exchange of calls between him and accused No.2;

10. As already pointed out, the motive

circumstance was attributed to all the three accused and

out of them 'B' report was filed in respect of two accused.

CW.3 is the witness for the last seen theory. It is not their

case that the victim and the appellant were seen together.

Their case is that CW.3 saw the appellant and accused

No.2 together and thereafter he saw the victim proceeding

towards the place where appellant and accused No.2 were

seen together by him.

11. The contents of the call detail records are not

collected. The said circumstance alone cannot be called as

a reasonable ground to believe that the appellant has

committed the offence alleged against him.

12. While considering the bail application, the

Court has to strike balance between the liberty of an CRL.A.No.1783/2021

individual and achieving justice on trial. The charge sheet

shows that there are 53 witnesses in the case, therefore,

the trial may take some time. On such circumstantial

material, if the appellant is subjected to pretrial conviction

and sentence and if ultimately he is acquitted, then the

position becomes irreversible.

13. So far as the provisions of Section 3 of the

SC/ST Act as per the charge sheet records themselves the

appellant also belongs to scheduled caste. There is no

basis in the records for the observation of the trial Court

that the accused were threatening the witnesses from the

jail. If at all there are any such apprehensions that can be

remedied by imposing suitable conditions.

14. Under the circumstances, the judgment in

Hariram Bhambhi's case cannot be justifiably applied to

the facts of this case. Under the aforesaid circumstances,

the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the bail

application. The appeal is allowed.

CRL.A.No.1783/2021

The impugned order dated 13.10.2021 passed in

Spl.Case No.65/2021 is hereby set aside.

The appellant is granted bail in Spl. Case No.65/2021

on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Mandya subject to the following conditions:

(i) The appellant shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;