Sumanth @ Suman vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11129 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 26 T H DAY OF JULY, 2022

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.839 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Sumanth @ Suman
S/o Nagaraj
Aged about 23 years
R/at No.139, 1 s t Main
1 s t Cross, Krishnaiah Palya
Indiranag ar Post
Beng aluru-560 039.
                                          ...Appellant
(By Sri R.V. Rajashekara, Advocate)

AND:

1.   State of Karnataka
     By its Station House Officer
     Ramamurthy Nag ar Police
     Beng aluru-560 016
     Rep. by
     State Pub lic Prosecutor
     Hig h Court Build ing
     Beng aluru-560 001.

2.   Smt. Subbamma
     W/o Late Shrinivas
     Aged about 52 years
     Near Muneshwar Temp le
     Krishnaiahna Palya
     Byappanahalli
     Beng aluru City-560 039.
                                       ...Respondents
(By Sri K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1;
 R2 - served)
                              :: 2 ::



      This   Criminal   Appeal      is    filed     under    Section
14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA), praying to set asid e the order
dated 22.04.2022 in Sp l. C.C. No.824/2021 in CR.
No.123/2021 Ramamurthy Nagara Police, Beng aluru
City p assed by the learned LXX City Civil and Sessions
Judge and Special Judge for release him on b ail for
the   alleged   offence     P/U/S.120-B,           302   read      with
Section   149   of   IPC,   Section      25   of    Arms    Act    and
Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989 pending on the
file of the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge at Beng aluru (CCH-71).

      This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission
this d ay, the Court d elivered the following:

                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under section 14(A) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('SC/ST Act' for

short). Accused no.6 is the appellant, he has

challenged the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by

the Special Court rejecting his application for bail

under section 439 Cr.P.C.

:: 3 ::

2. Heard Sri. Rajashekara R.V., learned

counsel for the appellant and the Government

Pleader. Respondent no.2 is served with notice,

but there is no representation on his behalf.

3. In the incident said to have taken place in

the intervening night of 28/29.3.2021, one Ravi @

Paul Ravi was killed. The charge sheet shows that

there was personal enmity between the deceased

and accused no.1. In furtherance of this enemity,

accused no.1 attacked the deceased two or three

times earlier, but his attempts to kill the deceased

failed and ultimately in the intervening night of

28/29.3.2021, when the deceased was standing

near an arch taking liquor, accused nos.1,2,3 and

4 killed him.

4. There are no eye witnesses to the incident.

In the charge sheet, the overt act attributed to the

appellant is that he dashed his car to the

motorcycle of the deceased and knocked him :: 4 ::

down. Thereafter accused nos.1,2,3 and 4

inflicted injuries to the deceased.

5. Learned Government Pleader opposes the

appeal by submitting that the investigating officer

was able to recover the blood stained clothes of

the appellant and the mobile phone at his instance

and thereby his participation in commission of

crime is forthcoming. Thus there are materials

indicating his involvement and therefore bail

should not be granted.

6. On perusal of the entire charge sheet, it is

found that the enemity was between accused no.1

and the deceased and the appellant herein was

just an associate of accused no.5. There are no

eye witnesses and the entire case rests on

circumstantial evidence. Except recovery of blood

stained clothes, there are no materials indicating

the direct involvement of the appellant in the

crime. It may also be stated that merely for the :: 5 ::

reason that appellant belonged to schedule caste,

the provisions of SC/ST Act have been invoked in

the charge sheet. There are no materials

indicating that the deceased was done to death in

the background of caste rivalry. Already accused

no.5 and 7 have been admitted to bail. So, if all

these aspects are considered, the appellant too

becomes entitled to bail. In this view the

impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence the

following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

The order passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) dated 22.04.2022 in Spl.C.No.824/2021 on the application of the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is set aside. The said application is allowed.

The appellant is admitted to bail on obtaining from him a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only) and :: 6 ::

providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

     i.    He     shall    not        tamper        with     the
           evidence            collected            by       the
           investigating        officer       and     threaten
           the witnesses.

ii. He shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial.

iii. Till conclusion of the trial, the appellant shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police (Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station) once in 15 days, preferably on Sunday between 9 am and 12 noon.

iv. He shall not get involved in any other criminal case/s in future. In case of any FIR is registered against him, the same will be considered for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sd