Kiran Kumar Alias Yesu S/O Late ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 9440 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022

                             BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

                CRL. A. NO.100246/2022 C/W
                   CRL.A.No.100265/2022
IN CRL.A NO 100246 OF 2022

BETWEEN

KIRAN KUMAR @ YESU
S/O LATE SOMANNA,
AGE. 29 YEARS,
OCC. AUTO DRIVER,
R/O. NEAR 1ST GATE NALE STREET,
COWL BAZAR
BALLARI - 580101.
                                                  .....APPELLANT
(BY SRI B ANWAR BASHA, ADV.)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      (THROUGH COWL BAZAR POLICE STATION)
      REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      DHARWAD. 580001.

2.    GOPAKL NAIK S/O DASA NAIK,
      D.NO. 105 WARD NO 29,
      1ST CROSS OPP. OLD FOREST QUARTERS,
      NEAR BELAGAL CROSS,
      RAMANJEYA NAGAR, COWL BAZAR,
      BALLARI - 583101.
                                                .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R-1
R-2 APPEARED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
                                 2




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14(A)2 OF SC AND ST
ACT) CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE IST ADDL. DIST AND SESSION JUDGE, BALLARI
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.12 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.
108/2020 REGISTERED IN COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION, FOR THE
OFFENCES 143, 120B, 212, 147, 148, 302, 109, 149 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3(2)2(V) OF SC/ST ACT, 1989, AND SEC. 4, 25, 1(B) OF ARMS
ACT PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE.

IN CRL.A NO 100265 OF 2022

BETWEEN

NAGENDRA KUMAR @ BANDIHATTI NAGI,
S/O LATE SATYARAJ,
AGE 26 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER,
R/O NEAR PANJA MASJID,
BANDIHATTI, COWL BAZAR,
BALLARI-580101.
                                                    .....APPELLANT
(BY SRI B ANWAR BASHA, ADV,)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      (THROUGH COWL BAZAR POLICE STATION)
      REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      DHARWAD-580001.

2.    GOPAL NAIK S/O DASA NAIK,
      D.NO.105, WARD NO. 29,
      IST CROSS OPP. OLD FOREST QUARTERS,
      NEAR BELAGAL CROSS, RAMANJEYA NAGAR,
      COWL BAZAR, BALLARI 583101.
                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R-1
R-2 APPEARED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14(A)2 OF SC AND ST
ACT SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE IST ADDL. DIST AND SESSION JUDGE BALLARI ENLARGE
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.19 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO. 108/2020
REGISTERED IN COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES
                                        3




143, 120B, 212, 147, 148, 302, 109, 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)2 (V)
OF SC/ST ACT, 1989, AND SEC. 4, 25, 1(B) OF ARMS ACT PENDING
TRIAL OF THE CASE BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BALLARI.

     THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                                JUDGMENT

Crl.A.No.100246/2022 is filed by accused No.12 and

Crl.A.No.100265/2022 is filed by accused No.19 under Section

14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

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

SC/ST Act', for short) for setting aside the order dated 13.11.2020

passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, in Crime

No.108/2020 and to grant bail to the appellants.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

appellants and learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 appeared

through video conferencing.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of

respondent No.2 herein, Crime No.108/2021 was registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 120B, 212, 147, 148, 302,

109, 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the

'IPC', for short) and under Sections 3(2), 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act,

1989 and under Sections 4, 25 and 1(B) of the Indian Arms Act. It

is alleged in the complaint that the brother of the complainant viz.,

C.D. Ravi was murdered by accused No.1 in the year 2014 and a

case was registered and it is pending before the Sessions Court.

Prior to 3 to 4 months to the complaint, the accused No.1

approached another brother of the complainant viz., Ramesh Naik

to compromise the matter otherwise he will kill him. But the said

Ramesh Naik refused to compromise the matter. On 25.07.2020 at

about 4.30 p.m., the complainant came to know that his brother

Ramesh Naik was attacked by accused No.1 and his followers

opposite to T.B. Sanitarium. Thereafter the complainant

immediately went there and saw that his brother Ramesh Naik was

murdered by accused persons. Therefore, the complaint came to

be registered against accused No.1 and other four unknown

persons. The police during the investigation arrested these

appellants. The bail petitions filed by the appellants came to be

rejected by the Sessions Court. Thereafter, the accused No.12 who

is the appellant in Crl.A.No.100246/2022 had approached this Court

for grant of bail and this Court by order dated 09.02.2021, rejected

the bail petition in Crl.P.No.101613/2020. Therefore, the

appellants are before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that

though this Court rejected the bail petition to the co-accused on

earlier occasion on 09.02.2021, later this Court granted bail to

them except these two appellants in Crl.A.Nos.100235/2021,

100261/2021 and 100185/2021. It is also contended that the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to other co-accused in

Crl.A.Nos.100253/2021 and 100258/2021. He further submits that

except the allegation of criminal conspiracy to commit the murder

of deceased, there is no other allegation against these appellants.

The appellants are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this

Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1 seriously objected for grant of bail.

6. Respondent No.2 appeared through video conferencing

and objected for grant of bail. He contended that if the appellants

are enlarged on bail, they may commit similar offences and they

may threaten the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, he requested

the Court not to grant bail to these appellants at least until the

completion of examination of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he

prayed for dismissing the appeals.

7. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

appellants, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

No.1 and complainant/respondent No.2, perused the records.

8. The main allegation against these appellants is that

they hatched conspiracy to commit the murder of Ramesh Naik.

Further, six months prior to the incident, they tried to attack the

deceased near Sub-Registrar Office but due to gathering of people,

they dropped attacking and thereafter accused Nos.1 to 5 were

successful in committing the murder of the deceased on 25.07.2020

with the help of these appellants. Admittedly, this Court rejected

the bail petition of appellant/accused No.12 vide order dated

09.02.2021 in Crl.P.No.101613/2020. The appellant/accused No.12

is in custody from 01.08.2020 i.e., more than 1 year 10 months.

The appellant/accused No.19 is in custody from 23.10.2020 i.e., for

almost 1 year 8 months. Except these appellants, all other co-

accused have been granted bail by this Court and the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in Crl.A.Nos.100235/2021, 100261/2021,

100185/2021, 100253/2021 and 100258/2021. However, this

Court rejected the bail petition of the accused No.1 who is the main

accused and he was a gang leader. There is no other case

registered against these appellants. Therefore, the appellants/

accused Nos.12 and 19 are entitled for the bail on the ground of

parity. There is no complaint by the prosecution for violation of bail

conditions by any of the accused persons who are on bail.

However, the apprehension of the learned H.C.G.P. and the

complainant/respondent No.2 that these appellants may threaten

the prosecution witnesses and they commit similar offices is

curtailed by imposing stringent conditions on the appellants.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

Both the appeals are allowed. The order dated 13.11.2020 in

Crime No.108/2020 in respect of accused No.12 and the order

dated 21.04.2022 in Spl.C.No.1067/2020 in respect of accused

No.19 passed by I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari are set

aside. The appellants/accused Nos.12 and 19 are ordered to be

released on bail in Crime No.108/2020 of Cowl Bazar Police Staton,

Ballari subject to the following conditions:

i. The appellants shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

ii. The appellants shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

iii. The appellants shall not indulge in similar offences.

iv. The appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.

v. The appellants shall take the trial without causing any delay.

If any of the conditions is violated, then the prosecution is at

liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Naa