Ravi @ Dasa vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 2746 Kant

                                 1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                            BEFORE

               THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.122/2022


BETWEEN:

SRINIVASA @ SEENA
S/O LATE SAMPANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO-356, 6TH CROSS,
2ND MAIN ROAD,
BANGARAPPA NAGARA
RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA,
BENGALURU CITY - 566 698.
PERMANENT AT
THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI COLONY
KAILANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK.
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159
                                                  ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJU T.A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     BY RAMANAGAR RURAL
     POLICE STATION,
     RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
     REPRESENTED BY
     LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
     PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OFFICE AT
     HIGH COURT BUILDING,
     AMBEDKAR VEEDI
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                                         2




     BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.   DEEPAK S/O NAGESH
     AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
     R/AT NO-202, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
     MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
     OPPOSITE OF KAMALAMMAGUNDI
     BENGALURU CITY - 560 086.


                                                        ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR R-1.
    R2 SERVED.)



      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
14.07.2021 IN CRL.MISC.NO.433/2021 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT    AND       SESSIONS    JUDGE,       RAMANAGARA     DISTRICT,
CONSEQUENTLY         ENLARGE      THE       APPELLANT    ON   BAIL    IN
CR.NO.72/2021 OF RAMANAGARA RURAL POLICE STATION, FOR AN
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 506 READ WITH
SECTION    34   OF    IPC   AND SECTION       3(2)(v) OF   SC/ST   (POA)
AMENDMENT ACT, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT   AND       SESSIONS    JUDGE,     RAMANAGARA     DISTRICT   IN
CR.NO.72/2021.



      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                         3



                                 JUDGMENT

The appellant-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking to

set aside the order dated 14.07.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.433/2021 on

the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Ramanagara District and to enlarge him on bail in Crime

No.72/2021 of Ramanagara Rural Police Station, registered for

the offences punishable under Sections 302, 506 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section

3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short 'the

Act').

2. Heard Sri. Basavaraju.T.A., learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri. Shankar.H.S., learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 served. Perused

the materials on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant is arrayed as accused No.1. He is innocent and law

abiding citizen. He has not committed any offences as alleged.

He has been falsely implicated in the case without any basis. He

was apprehended on 30.03.2021 and since then he is in judicial

custody. The investigation has been completed and the charge

sheet is also filed. There is nothing on record to believe the

version of the prosecution that the accused No.1 has committed

offence as alleged and he is not having any criminal

antecedents. Accused Nos.2 and 4, against whom similar

allegations were made, have already been enlarged on bail by

this Court. Therefore, the present accused is also entitled for

the benefit of parity with that of accused Nos.2 and 4. Since the

investigation is already completed, detention of the appellant in

custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The appellant is

the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause

title to the appeal and is ready and willing to abide by any of the

conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays

to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

opposing the appeal submitted that serious allegations are made

against the appellant for having committed the offences. The

appellant is one of the accused, who actively participated in

commission of the offence, which is punishable either with death

or imprisonment for life. CWs.3 to 5 are the eye-witnesses to the

incident, who spoke about the commission of offence by the

appellant. The investigation is completed and the charge is also

filed. The incriminating materials such as Knife, Dagger and Iron

Pipe used in commission of the offence were recovered at the

instance of the present accused. Considering the seriousness of

the offences, the present accused is not entitled for grant of

bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned

counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my

consideration is:

"Whether the appellant has made out a case to set aside the order dated 14.07.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.433/2021 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara District and consequently enlarge him on bail in Crime No.72/2021 of Ramanagara Rural Police Station, in the facts and circumstances of the case?"

6. My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for

the following:

REASONS

7. The materials placed on record disclose that serious

allegations are made against all the accused including the

present appellant/accused No.1. CWs.3 to 5 are cited as eye-

witnesses to the incident, who speak about the commission of

offence by the appellant. The weapons used in the commission of

offence i.e., Knife, Dagger and Iron Pipe, said to have been

jointly recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. It is

not in dispute that accused Nos.2 and 4 are already enlarged on

bail by this Court. The charge sheet discloses that no test

identification parade was held after apprehending the appellant

to enable the witnesses to identify him. The investigation is

completed and the charge sheet is also filed. It is not the

contention of the prosecution that the appellant is required for

further investigation or that he is having any criminal

antecedents. Therefore the appellant is also entitled for the

benefit of parity with accused Nos.2 and 4. The interest of the

prosecution could be safeguarded by imposing suitable and

stringent conditions while enlarging the appellant on bail. Under

such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the appellant is

entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will

take care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned High

Court Government Pleader that the appellant may abscond or

may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal appeal is allowed by setting aside the order

dated 14.07.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.433/2021 on the file of the I

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara District.

The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime

No.72/2021 of Ramanagara Rural Police Station, on obtaining

the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)

with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the

jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

a) The appellant shall not commit similar offences.

b) The appellant shall not threaten or tamper with the

prosecution witnesses.

c) The appellant shall appear before the Court as and

when required.

If in case, the appellant violates any of the bail conditions

as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for

cancellation of bail.

On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Trial Court

is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the

correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents

furnished by the appellant and the sureties and a report may be

called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the

Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on

satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose

of releasing the appellant on bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SMJ