Sourappa Alias Suri S/O Late ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 9451 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

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100236/2022

BETWEEN

SOURAPPA @ SURI S/O LATE SOURAPPA
AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
R/O. D.NO.1/64, NEAR BUS STAND,
MUDDANAGERI, ALUR, TQ KURNOOL,
DIST. ANDRAPRADESH 573213
                                                  .....APPELLANT
(BY SRI B ANWAR BASHA, ADV.)

AND

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

2.    SMT. SHRAVANI W/O ANOOP KUMAR,
      AGE. 40 YEARS,
      R/O. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SCHOOL
      VIDYALAYA ROAD, BANDIHATTI,
      COWL BAZAR,
      BALLARI 583 101.
                                                .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R-1
R-2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 (A) (2) OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI DATED 18.01.2022
                                     2




ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL IN SPL.CASE
NO.816/2022 IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.74/2021 REGISTERED IN
WOMEN POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES 364, 120B, 302, 394, 201,
34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2) (V) (a) OF SC/ST ACT, 1989 PENDING
TRIAL OF THE CASE BEFORE I ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BALLARI.

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

                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.2 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 granting bail by setting aside the order dated

18.01.2022 in Spl. Case No.816/2022 passed by the District and

Sessions Judge, Ballari.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 though served remained

unrepresented.

3. The case of the prosecution is that one of one Shravani

has filed a complaint dated 07.06.2021 alleging that she is residing

in her matrimonial home and her mother Jayamma and sister

Ramlaxmi were residing in their separate house and they were

missing from 20.03.2021. On 06.06.2021, one Venkatesh informed

the complainant that on 20.03.2021 at 2.30 p.m., her mother and

sister were boarding the car of Mallayya. Therefore, the

complainant filed the complaint suspecting on the said Mallayya

that he might have kidnapped and might have done something to

them. During the investigation, the police arrested this appellant

on 15.06.2021 and recorded his voluntary statement. The

investigation reveals that the deceased Ramalaxmi said to have lent

loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused No.1 and thereafter she said

to have charged interest at Rs.2,00,000/- and demanded for total

amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Therefore, the accused No.1 conspired

with other accused took the mother and sister of the complainant in

his car and when Jayamma went to attend the nature call, at that

time, she got down from the car and accused No.1 said to have

assaulted with iron rod. When Ramalaxmi came out of the car, the

accused assaulted on her. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 to 4 dragged

the dead bodies and dumped into the water canal. After completion

of investigation, the police filed charge sheet. The bail petition filed

by this appellant came to be rejected by the District Court. Hence,

he is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the

offence under the provisions of the SC/ST Act will not attract as the

deceased were belonging to Reddy community. Accused Nos.3 and

4 have already granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of thisCourt

in Crl.A.No.100089/2022 and Crl.A.No.100053/2022 on

05.04.2022. This appellant is having similar allegations against him

as that of accused Nos.3 to 6. The entire allegation is on the

accused No.1. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for bail on the

ground of parity. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

seriously objected for grant of bail.

6. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent, perused the records.

7. The complaint reveals that the deceased Jayamma and

deceased Ramalaxmi were found missing from 20.03.2021.

Subsequently, the complainant filed a missing complaint with the

Women Police Station on 13.04.2021 suspecting on the accused

No.1. Later on 06.06.2021, she came to know from one Venkatesh

that on 20.03.2021, at 2.30 p.m., both the accused persons were

boarding the car of accused No.1. Therefore, on the suspicion,

the complainant filed complaint against accused No.1 and on the

arrest of the accused, it came to know that the accused No.1 said

to have availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from deceased Ramalaxmi.

She said to have charged Rs.2,00,000/- interest and demanding

Rs.3,00,000/-. Therefore, accused No.1 hatched conspiracy with

this petitioner and other accused. Thrice they attempted to commit

the murder of Jayamma and Ramalaxmi but they were unable to

commit the murder. Subsequently, on 20.03.2022, accused No.1

brought his car along with accused No.2 and got boarded Jayamma

and Ramalaxmi in the car. He went near the canal and stopped the

car. The accused No.3 and 4 came in an auto rickshaw as planned

by them. Thereafter, Jayamma got down from the car to attend

nature call and then the accused No.1 assaulted deceased

Ramalaxmi on her head with iron rod and thereafter he assaulted

Jayamma. The accused Nos.2 to 4 dumped both the dead bodies

into canal. It is admitted fact that both the dead bodies were not

traced by the police but the golden ornaments and mobile of the

deceased persons were found in the possession of accused No.1.

Thereafter, in the voluntary statement, the accused No.1 confessed

that he has committed murder and thrown the dead bodies in the

canal. The last seen witness Rudrappa CW-16 has stated that he

has seen the deceased persons along with accused Nos.1 to 4. The

accused person said to be shown the place of offence. The only

contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that accused No.3

and 4 who are having similar allegations were granted bail by the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. But the charge sheet reveals that

accused Nos.1 to 4 hatched conspiracy for committing murder of

the deceased persons. Though accused No.1 alone assaulted the

deceased persons, other accused persons have destroyed the

evidence for having committed offence by throwing the dead bodies

in the canal. Merely on the fact that this appellant has not used

any weapon during the kidnap of the deceased and while accused

No.1 was assaulting, it cannot be presumed that this appellant has

no role in commission of the offence. This appellant went in the car

of accused No.1 for kidnapping the deceased persons and he was

present in the car when the accused No.1 was assaulting the

deceased persons. Such being the case, I am of the view that on

the ground of parity, the appellant is not entitled for bail. Of

course, the provisions of SC/ST Act will not attract against the

accused persons as the deceased were belonging to Reddy

community. However, there are material evidences against the

appellant/accused No.2 for having involved in committing the

murder of two womenfolk and in destroying the evidence and the

police are unable to recover the dead bodies. Such being the case,

I am of the view that the appellant is not entitled for bail.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Naa