Venu C vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 4691 Kant

                            1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.18 OF 2022

BETWEEN:
VENU C.
S/O CHALAPATHI @ VENKATACHALAPATHI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT KUVEMPU ROAD, RAJANUKUNTE VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
YELAHANKA TALUK-560 088.
                                    ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SATISH R. GIRJI, ADVOCATE) (PH)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       BY RAJANUKUNTE POLICE,
       BANGALORE (R) DISTRICT-562 106.

       REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
       SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       BANGALORE-560 001.

2.     R. J. PUNITHKUMAR,
       S/O LATE JAYARAMAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
       OPP. SBI BANK, KAKOLU ROAD,
       RAJANKUNTE, HESARAGATTA HOBLI,
       YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.
                                    ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP FOR R1 (PH)
    R2 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14A(2) OF SC/ST ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
                                2

ORDER DATED 21.12.2021 PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN
SPL.C.NO.189/2020 AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL,
PLEASED TO GRANT A BAIL FOR THE APPELLANT IN
CR.NO.07/2020 OF RAJANAKUNTE POLICE STATION, FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341,120(B),302,307,201,109,118 R/W
34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, WHICH
IS NOW ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN
SPL.C.NO.189/2020.

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by accused No.1, praying to

set aside the order dated 21.12.2021, passed in

Spl.C.No.189/2020, rejecting his petition filed under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and consequently to enlarge him on

bail in crime No.7/2020 of Rajankunte Police Station,

charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections

120(B), 341, 302, 307, 201, 109, 118 read with 34 of IPC

and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant, the

learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the

material on record.

3. Respondent No.2/first informant has been

served but there is no representation.

4. Case of the prosecution is that there was ill will

between accused No.1 and deceased Santhosh alias

Sammalu. On 09.03.2018, deceased and his associates

had attempted on the life of accused No.1, by assaulting

him with lethal weapons. The deceased took treatment in

the hospital for several months for the injuries sustained

by him. He was grinding an axe against deceased

Santhosh and at the instigation of his father i.e. accused

No.5, he along with other accused persons held a

conspiracy to eliminate Santosh alias Sammalu. In

furtherance of the conspiracy entered between them, on

22.01.2020, the accused traveled in a car, armed with

deadly weapons to eliminate the deceased and at about

8.30 p.m., they waylaid him, while he was proceeding in a

car bearing registration No.KA-05/Z-3393, along with CW

Nos.1 to 4. The accused persons attacked him with deadly

weapons and assaulted him all over his body and

committed his murder.

5. The learned counsel for appellant submits that

on an earlier occasion, the appellant approached this

Court in Crl.A.No.1088/2021, on merits as well as on

medical grounds and this Court after considering that the

appellant has not sought bail on medical grounds before

the Sessions Court, dismissed the said appeal permitting

him to approach the Sessions Court placing all necessary

material including the medical report submitted by the jail

authority. He contends that the incident has taken place

in pitch-darkness and only on suspicion, the appellant has

been implicated. He contends that there is discrepancy in

the statement of the witnesses and recovery of

incriminating material and similarly placed other accused

are enlarged on bail by this Court. He submits that the

appellant is suffering from various ailments, which is

evident from the report submitted by the Chief Medical

Officer, Central Prison Hospital, Bengaluru. He submits

that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody from

21.04.2020. Now, the investigation is completed and

charge sheet has been filed. He submits that the learned

Sessions Judge without taking into consideration all these

aspects has erroneously rejected the petition seeking bail.

Therefore submits, by imposing any condition, which the

appellant will adhere to, may be enlarged him on bail.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader on the

other hand has contended that CW Nos.1 to 4 are eye

witnesses and their statements would clearly reveal that

the appellant was one of the assailants, who committed the

murder. He contends that the blood stained clothes,

weapon and a car has been seized at the instance of the

appellant and therefore, there is a prima facie case made

out against the appellant. Hence, he contends that the

appellant is not entitled for the relief sought in this appeal.

Accordingly, sought to reject the appeal.

7. The incident has taken place on 22.01.2020, at

about 8.30 p.m. The case of prosecution is that in view of

the previous enmity, while deceased was proceeding in a

car along with CW Nos.1 to 4 on Rajankunte-

Madappanahalli road, near Srinivas Land, Hesaraghatta,

accused Nos.1 to 4, who came in a car driven by accused

No.1, hit their vehicle against the vehicle in which, the

deceased and others were traveling. Thereafter, all the

accused got down from the car and assaulted the deceased

indiscriminately with longs and committed his murder.

8. The complaint is lodged by CW-1-R.J. Puneeth

Kumar. In the First Information Report, he has not stated

that he has seen the appellant assaulting the deceased.

On the other hand, he has suspected the role of the

appellant, on account of enmity between deceased

Santhosh and the appellant, since two years. He has

stated that the appellant and his associates might have

committed the murder. Hence, FIR was registered naming

the appellant and other unknown persons. His further

statement is recorded on 25.01.2020, which is after arrest

of accused No.1. In the statement of CW-2, which is

recorded on 10.02.2020, he has stated that the accused

was in driver's seat and from the voice, he suspected that

it was the appellant. CW Nos.3 & 4 have stated that

appellant got down from the car and assaulted the

deceased and even other accused persons have also

assaulted the deceased. However, from the First

Information Report it could be gathered that the name of

the appellant was mentioned on suspicion. Be that as it

may, this Court has enlarged accused Nos.3, 5 to 8 on bail.

Accused No.3 was enlarged on bail in Crl.P.No.6110/2020

by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated

01.12.2020.

9. The learned High Court Government Pleader

has produced the medical report of appellant/accused

No.1, furnished by the Chief Superintendent, Central

Prison, Bengaluru dated 22.02.2022. He submits that

currently the general condition of the appellant is stable as

per the said report. However, there is history of Diffuse

Traumatic Brain Injury with Right Temporal Depressed

Fracture and the appellant had undergone surgery for the

same. He has been diagnosed with Acute Pancreatitis with

Pancreatic Necrosis etc., and undergone Laparotomy

Pancreatic necrosectomy with peri Pancreatic and

Peritoneal abscess drainage and the report states that he

is on a regular follow up treatment.

10. The appellant is in judicial custody since

24.01.2020. Investigation is completed and charge sheet

has been filed. He has undertaken to abide by conditions

and regularly appear before the trial Court. In the aboove

facts and circumstances, the impugned order rejecting the

application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C., requires interference. The appellant can be

admitted to bail by imposing appropriate conditions.

Accordingly, the following :

ORDER

The impugned order dated 21.12.2021 passed in

Spl.C. No.189/2020, is hereby set aside. Consequently the

petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.

Appellant/accused No.1 is directed to be enlarge on bail in

crime No.7/2020 of Rajankunte Police Station, pending in

Spl.C.No.189/2020 on the file of II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, subject to

following conditions:

(i) Appellant/accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) Appellant shall furnish proof of his residential address and shall inform the Court/Investigating Officer if there is any change in the address;

(iii) Appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court, without the prior permission of learned sessions Judge;

(iv) Appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly;

(v) Appellant shall mark his attendance at the jurisdictional police station on 1st and 15th of every month between 10.00 a.m., and 1.00 p.m., till the conclusion of trial or until further orders;

(vi) Appellant shall appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing without fail; and

(vii) Appellant shall not involve in any criminal activities.

If any of the above conditions are violated, the appellant shall not be entitled to the relief of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JY