Kantharaj K vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3241 Kant

                                      Crl.A.No.1418/2021

                           1
                                                       M




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

          CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1418/2021

BETWEEN:

KANTHARAJ K
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT DHADAMAGATTE VILLAGE
BHADRAVATHI - 577 245

ALSO R/AT KAVALAGUNDI VILLAGE
DONABHUGATTA ROAD
BHADRAVATHI
SHIVAMOGGA- 577 201                         ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI SRI.B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY RURAL POLICE STATION
       BHADRAVATHI
       REP. BY SPP
       HIGH COURT BUILDING
       BANGALORE - 560 001

2.     MOHAN KUMAR B.L.
       S/O LATE K.C.LAKSHMAN
       AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
       R/AT NEW COLONY
       BHADRAVATHI TOWN - 577 245
       BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R1;
    R2 SERVED)
                                         Crl.A.No.1418/2021

                              2
                                                         M




      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 25.08.2021 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.
MISC.NO.776/2021

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                    JUDGMENT

Heard. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of his

application for anticipatory bail, accused No.2 in Crime

No.23/2020 of Bhadravathi Rural Police Station has

preferred the above appeal.

2. The appellant and six others are charge

sheeted in Crime No.23/2020 of Bhadaravathi Rural Police

Station punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148,

504, 324, 354, 506, 304(2) read with Section 149 of IPC,

Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 ('the Act' for short).

3. In the charge sheet, the appellant is shown as

absconding accused. Therefore, apprehending his arrest,

he filed Crl.Misc.No.776/2021 before the trial Court. The Crl.A.No.1418/2021

M

trial Court by the impugned order rejected the bail

petition on the ground that there is prima-facie material

to show involvement of the appellant in the case and that

Sections 18 and 18A of the Act bar grant of anticipatory

bail.

4. Sri B.S.Prasad, learned Counsel for the

appellant submits that the death of the victim was after

10 days of the incident and the medical records do not

show that the death was relatable to the alleged assault.

He further submits that the allegations of caste based

discrimination are against accused No.1.

5. Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP submits

that the allegation is that all the accused committed the

offence with common object. As per the charge sheet

records, there were in all five injured witnesses. She

further submits that the injuries inflicted on Srinivas

Murthy precipitated his death due to his medical

condition. Therefore, she submits that it is not a fit case

to grant anticipatory bail.

Crl.A.No.1418/2021

M

6. As per the charge sheet records, CWs.1 to 4

and the deceased Srinivas Murthy belong to the

scheduled caste. The statements of the injured

eyewitnesses at this stage show that the appellants and

accused No.1 assaulted Srinivas Murthy with clubs and

stone and the appellant and accused No.1 tried to disrobe

CW.3. The postmortem report shows that there were four

injuries on the dead body of the victim. The medical

opinion states that isolated fracture of L1 Vertebrae is not

sufficient to cause death in normal healthy individual in

the ordinary course of nature.

7. According to the prosecution, Srinivas Murthy

was not having normal health at the time of the incident

and he had some cardiac medical condition. As per the

charge sheet records, all accused were members of

unlawful assembly and shared common object to assault

CWs.1 to 4 and Srinivas Murthy.

8. Having regard to the nature of the offences

and the materials on record, the trial Court was justified

in holding that there is prima-facie material to attract Crl.A.No.1418/2021

M

Sections 18 and 18A of the Act and anticipatory bail is not

maintainable. There is no merit in the appeal and the

same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE KSR