Sri Lokesh Y S vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 120 Kant

                                      Crl.A.No.1685/2021

                            1
                                                        M




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1685/2021

BETWEEN:

SRI LOKESH.Y.S
S/O SAMANDIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT YELAVALLI VILLAGE
SATHANURU TALUK
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA 562 126
AND ALSO AT
SRI.RAMPURA STREET
AMBEDKAR NAGARA
KANAKAPURA TOWN
RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 125                ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI G.M.SRINIVASA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       R/BY SATHANURU POLICE STATION
       THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       HIGH COURT BUILDING
       BENGALURU-560 001

2.     SHIVAPPA MALLAPURA
       S/O DYAMAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
       R/AT HONAKANA VILLAGE
       HANAGAL TALUK
       HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 104         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R1;
     R2 SERVED)
                                          Crl.A.No.1685/2021

                             2
                                                           M




      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14A(2) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED
TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2021 PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA
IN CRL.MISC.NO.700/2021 ETC.

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

                     JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. Aggrieved by the rejection of his bail petition,

the accused in Crime No.104/2021 of Sathanoor Police

Station, Ramanagar District has preferred the above

appeal.

3. The appellant was married to Kusuma @

Geeta about four years prior to 01.06.2021. The appellant

belongs to Vokkaliga Community and Kusuma @ Geeta

belongs to the scheduled caste. Out of the wedlock, the

couple got a child aged two years.

4. It is alleged that the appellant developed ill-

will against Kusuma @ Geeta on the ground that

suppressing her caste, she married him and in that

background, there used to be quarrel. It is further alleged Crl.A.No.1685/2021

M

that he started suspecting fidelity of Kusuma @ Geeta

and in that background on 01.06.2021 at 2.00 p.m. he

committed murder of Kusuma @ Geeta by strangulating

her. It is alleged that to screen the evidence of offence,

the appellant stuffed the dead body in a bag and shifted

to the land on his motorcycle and buried the same in the

land.

5. The appellant filed the complaint on

03.06.2021 before the respondent police stating that his

wife is missing from the house on 01.06.2021. On

11.06.2021 he was arrested. The interrogation of the

appellant allegedly revealed the commission of offence

and at his instance corpus delicti was discovered.

6. On completion of the investigation, the

respondent police have charge sheeted the appellant for

the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of

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

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment

Act, 2015.

Crl.A.No.1685/2021

M

7. The appellant filed Crl.Misc.No.700/2021

before the I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Ramanagar seeking bail. The trial Court rejected the

petition.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits

that the appellant himself filed complaint about missing of

his wife. He further submits that the police took his

signatures on blank papers for manipulating his voluntary

statements, exhumation report and mahazar regarding

discovery of the dead body.

9. Learned HCGP opposes the bail on the ground

that though the case is based on circumstantial evidence,

there is sufficient material to connect the appellant to the

crime. Therefore at this stage, it is not a fit case to grant

bail.

10. The offence alleged against the appellant is

punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Though

his wife went missing from his house on 01.06.2021 he

filed complaint on 03.06.2021. The records produced Crl.A.No.1685/2021

M

before the Court show that the dead body of the victim

was discovered from the land at the instance of the

appellant. The said circumstance is within the special

knowledge of the appellant which he has to explain during

trial.

11. As per the investigation records, there was an

attempt to conceal the evidence of the commission of the

offence. Having regard to the nature of offence and the

material on record, it is not a fit case to grant bail,

therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE KSR