Abhishek @ Choki vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 701 Kant

                                             CRL.A.No.1618/2021


                             1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                           BEFORE

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

         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1618/2021

BETWEEN:

[email protected] CHOKI
S/O LATE SHUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT NO.7, 5TH CROSS
HOYSALA LAYOUT
SERVICE STATION ROAD
AMRUTHHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 092.          ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.NATARAJ.D, ADV.)

AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
      AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION
      BENGALUIRU
      REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTIOR
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
      BENGALURU-560 001.

2.    SATHISH.S
      S/O LATE SHANKAR
      AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
      R/AT NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL
      DASARAHALLI VILLAGE
      H.A. FARM POST, BENGALURU-560 024.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHANKAR H.S, HCGP FOR R.1
 R.2 SERVED)
                                             CRL.A.No.1618/2021


                           2



      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14A(2) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT, 1989) PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE      THE     ORDER      DATED   17.12.2020     IN
CRL.MISC.NO.6795/2020 PASSED BY THE LXX ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT
BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.760/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302,
201, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

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

                       JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the rejection of his bail application

accused No.2 in Crime No.112/2020 of Amruthahalli police

station which is now pending in Special Case No.760/2020

on the file of the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions

Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru has preferred the

above appeal.

2. The appellant and accused Nos.1 and 3 are

facing trial in Special Case No.760/2020 for the offences

punishable under Sections 120(B), 201, 302 read with

Section 34 IPC and under Sections 3(2)(v) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment CRL.A.No.1618/2021

Act, 2014 on the basis of the complaint of CW-1/Sri

S.Sathish.

3. Deceased Harish belonged to scheduled caste.

CW-1 is the brother & accused No.1 is the wife of Harish.

CW-9 is the son of accused No.1 and deceased Harish.

4. Prosecution case in brief is as follows:

Accused No.1 and the appellant were having illicit

relationship and that was resisted by deceased. Therefore

accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired to commit the murder of

Harish. They hired accused No.3 to commit murder of

Harish. In execution of such conspiracy, during the

intervening night on 9/10-07-2020 at 1 a.m. when Harish

was sleeping, the appellant with a size stone crushed the

head of Harish and accused No.3 stabbed Harish and

committed his murder. To screen the evidence of offence

accused dumped the dead body in nearby storm water

drain.

5. The trial Court rejected the bail application of

the appellant. Therefore he has filed the above appeal. He CRL.A.No.1618/2021

is seeking bail on the ground of parity and that there is no

cogent and consistent material against him.

6. The copy of the order in Criminal Appeal

No.1211/2021 produced by the appellant shows that

accused No.3 was granted bail on the ground that the

eyewitness CW-9 has not identified him. However, the very

same order indicates that the bail application of accused

No.1 the wife is rejected.

7. The allegation against the appellant is serious

than the allegation against accused No.1 as she had not

physically assaulted. PW-9 child eyewitness in his

statement before I.O as well as before Magistrate under

Section 164 of Cr.PC. has implicated the appellant.

8. Having regard to the gravity of the offence and

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

Therefore appeal was dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE PKN