Dasharath S/O Jateppa @ Bapu ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 8948 Kant

                              1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE

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

         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200073/2022
Between:

Dasharath S/o Jatteppa
@ Bapu Yadave,
Age: 50 Years, Occ: Coolie,
R/o Ratnapur, Tq: Tikota,
Dist: Vijayapura-586101.
                                             ... Appellant
(By Sri Patil Sidhaling, Advocate)


And:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       Through PSI Tikota PS
       Represented by Addl. SPP
       High Court of Karnataka
       Kalaburagi Bench-585107.

2.     Bharati W/o Mahadevappa Koulagi,
       Age: 46 Years, Occ: Household,
       R/o Ghevarchand Colony,
       Vijayapura-586101.
                                           ... Respondents
(By Sri Gururaj V.Hasilkar, HCGP for R1;
 R2 is served)
                               2




      This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2)
of SC/ST PA Act, praying to set aside the impugned order
passed   by   II-Addl.   Sessions    Judge,       Vijayapura   in
Crl.Misc.No.1070/2021 dated 01.10.2021 and grant the
regular bail to the appellant/accused in Crime No.1/2021
of   respondent   No.1   Police   Station   for    the   offences
punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and
Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Amendment Act-2015.


      This appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the
Court delivered the following:

                         JUDGMENT

The appellant-accused No.3 is before this Court

seeking grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'

for short) in Crime No.1/2021 of Tikota Police Station,

Vijayapura District, initially registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 302, 109 r/w Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC). After investigation,

charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable under

Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)((v) of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) (Amendment) Act, 2015, on the basis of the

first information lodged by informant-Bharathi.

2. Heard Sri Patil Sidhaling, learned counsel for

the appellant and Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned High

Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted

that the appellant is arrayed as accused No.3 and he has

not committed any offences as alleged against him. He has

been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He

was apprehended on 03.01.2021 and since then, he is in

judicial custody. The motive is alleged against accused

No.1 to cause the death of the deceased. There is

inordinate delay in lodging the first information by the wife

of the deceased and the same is not explained. The

specific allegation is made against accused No.1 that he

assaulted/stabbed the deceased with a knife. The

appellant was in the company of accused Nos.1 and 2 and

therefore, he is implicated in this case. Investigation is

already completed and the charge sheet is filed. Detention

of the appellant in custody is not required either for further

investigation or for any other purpose except to ensure his

presence before the Trial Court. 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 appeal.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1-State opposing the appeal

submitted that serious allegations are made against the

appellant for having committed the offence along with

accused Nos.1 and 2. There are eyewitnesses to the

incident. It is specifically stated that the present appellant

had assaulted the deceased on his head and face with

heavy stone. The stone weighing 15 Kgs., was recovered

from the spot. As per the postmortem report, there were

multiple injuries sustained on the head, face and other

parts of the body. The cause of death is due to

hemorrhagic shock secondary to injuries sustained. The

offence alleged is punishable either with death or

imprisonment for life. Now the matter is pending before

the Trial Court. If, in the meantime, appellant is enlarged

on bail, it will have adverse impact on the eyewitnesses

and the informant. Looking into the seriousness of the

offences, appellant is not entitled for grant of bail.

Accordingly, 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 is entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the

following:

REASONS

6. Serious allegations are made against the

appellant-accused along with other accused for having

committed the offences. The first informant-Bharathi

Kaulagi, wife of the deceased received information from

CW.8 who was running Dhaba where the incident had

taken place. The incident said to have taken place on

31.12.2020 at about 8.30 p.m. The first information came

to be lodged on 01.01.2021 at 9.30 a.m. Therefore, it

cannot be said that there is inordinate delay in lodging the

first information. As per the charge sheet filed by the

Investigating Officer, CWs.8 to 10 are the eyewitnesses.

In the first information itself, there is reference to CW.8

who is said to have seen the incident and informed the

informant about the incident. It is specifically stated that

accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with knife. Accused

Nos.2 and 3 assaulted him with stones. It is specifically

stated that the present appellant assaulted the deceased

on the head and face with heavy stone. Spot panchanama

discloses that heavy stone weighing 15 Kgs., was

recovered from spot. As per the postmortem report, the

deceased had sustained as many as 9 injuries including the

head injury. Cause of death is due to hemorrhagic shock

secondary to the injuries sustained. In view of all these

prima facie materials, it cannot be said that the appellant

is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. After

filing of the charge sheet, now the matter is pending

before the Trial Court. The apprehension expressed by the

learned High Court Government Pleader that if the

appellant is enlarged on bail, at this stage, it will have

adverse impact on the witnesses as well as on the first

informant appears to be genuine. Therefore, I am of the

opinion that the appellant is not entitled for bail.

7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

negative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NB*