Nagesh Alias Nagu S/O Shekhappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 9778 Kant

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                             BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN


            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100264 OF 2022
                       CONNECTED WITH
            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100276 OF 2022

IN CRL.A. NO.100264/2022:

BETWEEN

1.    NAGESH @ NAGU S/O. SHEKHAPPA PANASE
      AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURE/PRIVATE WORK,
      R/O. ISHWAR NAGAR, INFRONT OF APMC,
      BAIRIDEVAKOPPA,
      HUBBALLI-580025.
      DIST: DHARWAD.

2.    SUMADHUR S/O. RAMESH PUJARI
      AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
      OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
      HOUSE NO.M.I.G.-73, 4TH CROSS,
      NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025.
      DIST: DHARWAD.
                                            .....APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIJAY S. CHINIWAR, ADV.)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      THROUGH APMC NAVANAGAR P.S.,
      HUBBALLI NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
                                 2




     DIST: DHARWAD.
     REPRESENTED BY
     STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     BENCH AT DHARWAD.

2.   HEMANTH S/O. KESHAV MEGHARAJ
     AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: L.I.C. AGENT,
     R/O. INDRAPRASTHA NAGAR, 5TH CROSS,
     ANANDNAGAR ROAD OLD HUBBALLI,
     HUBBALLI-580024.
     DIST: DHARWAD.
                                              .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
 R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)


      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC
AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATTROCITIES) ACT, 1989, SEEKING TO ALLOW
THE APPEAL BY ENLARGING THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 AND 201 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND
UNDER SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATTROCITIES)
ACT, IN APMC NAVANAGAR P.S. CRIME NO.39/2022 PENDING ON THE
FILE IN THE COURT II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS DHARWAD
DISTRICT, AND BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2022
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, AT DHARWAD IN APMC NAVANAGAR P.S. CRIME
NO.39/2022.

IN CRL.A. NO.100276/2022:

BETWEEN

KRISHNA @ KITTYA S/O. LAXMAN KADLIGUNDI
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. MIGI/20, KHB COLONY, NAVANAGAR,
HUBBALLI-580004.
                                                 .....APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. V. SOMAPUR, ADV.)
                                       3




AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR,
      APMC POLICE STATION, NAVANAGAR,
      REPRESENTED BY
      STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      DHARWAD BENCH-580001.

2.    HEMANTH S/O. KESHAV MEGHARAJ
      AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: L.I.C. AGENT,
      R/O. INDRAPRASTHA NAGAR, 5TH CROSS,
      ANANDNAGAR ROAD OLD HUBBALLI,
      HUBBALLI-580024.
      DIST: DHARWAD.
                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
 R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)


      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC
AND ST ACT, SEEKING TO THE APPELLANT MAY PLEASE BE RELEASED ON
BAIL, IN APMC NAVANAGAR POLICE STATION CRIME NO.39/2022 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201 READ WITH
34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC AND ST (P.O.A.) ACT, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, DHARWAD.


      THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                               JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal No.100264/2022 is filed by the

appellants/accused Nos.2 and 4 and the Criminal Appeal

No.100276/2022 is filed by the appellant/accused No.3 under

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

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

and ST Act', for short) for setting aside the common order passed

by the Special Court in Crime No.39/2022 registered by APMC

Navanagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Section

302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and

Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (POA) Act.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State. The respondent No.2 appeared physically

and instructed the learned High Court Government Pleader to

appear on her behalf.

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

respondent No.2-Hemanth S/o. Keshav Megharaj, the Police

registered the case against accused No.1 for the aforesaid offences

on 19.05.2022, it is alleged in the complaint that his son-deceased

Vinay said to be studying in JSS College, Dharwad and used to

study combining with one Ranjeeta Patil who was his classmate and

he used to go along with her and study in group. The accused No.1

said to be came and threaten the deceased stating that she is the

Ranjeeta is his lover, therefore he should not talk with her

otherwise he will not tolerate. Subsequently on 18.05.2022 at about

8.00 p.m., the complainant took her son along with his son and

dropped his son-deceased Vinay to Akshaya Park Circle. But, he

did not returned inspite of 8.30 p.m., thereafter he went and

searching him. Thereafter, he came to know at about 4.00 p.m. in

the evening he telephoned to Ranjeeta and questioned about his

son for that she has intimated at 4.00 p.m., herself and deceased

were walking together, at that time the accused No.1 came in a

motorcycle and stopped his motorcycle and asked the deceased to

go to his house. She has informed that accused No.1 was standing

along with motorcycle then the deceased-Vinay informed her to go

to her home, therefore she came to the home and trying to contact

the deceased but his phone was switched off, subsequently, he

came to know that his son was found dead in Sutagatti Hills.

Immediately, he went there and after seeing the dead body and

lodged the complaint against accused No.1. After registering the

case the Police arrested the accused No.1 on 19.05.2022 and

recorded his voluntary statement. Based upon the voluntary

statement of accused No.1, the Police arrested these appellants on

20.05.2022 and they remanded to judicial custody. They

approached the Sessions Judge for grant of bail which came to be

rejected and hence, they are before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.2

and 4 has seriously contended that the appellants are innocent of

the alleged offences. They have been falsely implicated in this

case, otherwise the provision under Section 302 of IPC will not

attracted against them, they came to the spot only after

commission of murder by accused No.1. The entire allegations

made against the accused No.1 who is in custody. The offence

attracting against these appellants is under Section 201 of IPC. The

appellants are in custody more that one month, they are ready to

abide by any conditions. There are no any specific overt acts

against these appellants and hence he prayed for grant of bail.

5. The learned counsel appearing for accused No.3 also

supported the arguments of learned counsel for accused Nos. 2 and

4 contended that even the eye witnesses were not stated anything

about the specific overt acts against these appellants except they

went to the spot and found along with accused No.1. Except their

friends there is no incriminating evidence against these appellants.

Hence, prayed for grant of bail.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader

has seriously objected the appeal and contended that one eye

witness by name Raghvendra Chalwadi, who is watchmen near the

land of accused No.1 was assaulted and quarrelling with the

deceased and he had heard the noise of quarrel and subsequently,

accused Nos.2 to 4 and others were also came and joined in the

car thereafter they went away. He intimated to the Police and the

brother of the owner. The investigation is still in progress. The

Police seized the motorcycle and car from these appellants.

Therefore, at this stage if the bail is granted to the appellants, they

may abscond and tampering the prosecution witnesses, which

cannot be ruled out. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Having heard the arguments of both counsel and

perused the records.

8. On perusal of the same it reveals that the son of the

complainant was found murdered and his dead body was found in

the Sutagatti Hills. It is also reveals from the complaint that the

deceased was combined studying with one Ranjeeta Patil where the

accused No.1 said to be threatened the complainant's son stating

that she is his lover for that he should not mingle or meet with her

and warned him. Subsequently on 18.05.2022 the complainant

dropped his son near Akshaya Park Circle, subsequently inspite of

8.30 p.m., he did not returned. Therefore, he telephoned to

Ranjeeta Patil where she has stated at about 4.00 p.m. herself and

deceased was proceeding on the road near Karnataka Circle, at that

time accused No.1 was standing on his motor cycle after the

deceased informed her to go to her house, immediately she went to

her house and subsequently contacting the deceased and found his

was switched off. The statement of Ranjeeta Patil reveals that the

deceased was seen with the accused company i.e. last viewed.

Subsequently the deceased was found dead in some other place.

As per the statement of Raghvendra Chalwadi who is eye witness

stated that two other persons were quarrelling near the land of his

brother and subsequently he call and other persons were also came

to there. Based upon the voluntary statement of the accused No.1,

of course these appellants were arrested by the Police, these

appellants were also give statements that they came by that time

the accused No.1 already assaulted and committed the murder of

the deceased. Therefore, these appellants with an intention to

safeguard the accused No.1 they asked him to go and they

disposed the body. The dead body was taken by them in car and

lay down in Sutagatti Hills and went away. On the voluntary

statement the Police arrested appellants as well as seized the car

used for shifting the dead body and left to in lonely place. Of

course the allegations made against these appellants are may not

attract under Section 302 of IPC for helping the accused No.1 to

escape from the spot and these appellants causing disappearance of

evidence of murder which may attracted Section 201 of IPC.

9. However, the investigation is still pending, the Police

yet to have recorded the statements of eye witnesses Ranjeeta Patil

and Raghavendra Chalwadi, but the investigation is still under

progress that the alleged offences of commission of murder of a

student by the accused No.1 and these appellants, though they

friends of the accused No.1 still the matter is required for detailed

investigation to know how these appellants went to the place of

occurrence for helping the accused No.1 for disappearing the

evidence of murder and having shifted the dead body. if the

appellants are released on bail there is every possibility of

absconding and threatening the prosecution witness and tampering

the other evidence which cannot be ruled out.

10. Therefore, in view of pending investigation, the

appellants are not entitled for bail and the appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SMM