Shivakumar @ Kangai vs State By
2022 Latest Caselaw 5754 Kant

                                 1


      THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1889 OF 2021


BETWEEN

  1. SHIVAKUMAR @ KANGAI,
     SON OF KUMAR,
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
     RESIDENT OF NO.18, B STREET,
     BAYADARAHALLI, BENSON-TOWN,
     BANGALORE-560046.

  2. STEPHEN TIMOTHY,
     SON OF ANTHONI DAS,
     AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT NO.2, 8TH B CROSS,
     GANDHINAGAR, K G HALLI,
     BANGALORE-560045.
     (BOTH ACCUSED NO.7 AND 8
     ARE IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)             ... APPELLANTS

[BY SRI.NAGARAJA K.R, ADVOCATE]

AND

  1. STATE BY
     D J HALLI POLICE STATION,
     REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
     HIGH COURT BUILDING,
     BANGALORE-560001.

  2. SHIVAKUMAR,
     SON OF JAYARAJ,
                                  2


      AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
      R/AT NO.106, 6TH CROSS
      SAMADANANAGARA,
      K G HALLI,
      BANGALORE-560044.                      ... RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR K.K, HCGP FOR R1
 R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]

                               ***

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2)OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
25.11.2021 IN SPL.C.NO.1697/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
HONOURABLE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND SPL.JUDGE AT BENGALURU 2. THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND
2/ACCUSED NO.7 AND 8 ABOVE NAMED HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THEM ON BAIL
IN     SPL.C.NO.1697/2021    FOR    THE    OFFENCE     P/U/S
307,302,109,120B,201 R/W 149 OF IPC, AND SEC.25(1)(b)(B) OF
ARMS ACT AND SEC.3(2)(V)(VA) OF SC/ST ACT ON THE FILE OF THE
HONBLE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPL.JUDGE AT BENGALURU.


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

In this appeal, the appellant has sought to set aside the

impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, rejecting

his petition seeking regular bail.

2. Charge sheet has bee filed against accused Nos.1 to

8 for offences punishable under Sections 307, 302, 109, 120B,

201 read with 149 of IPC, Section 25(1B)(B) of Arms Act,

Section 3(2)(V)(VA) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

3. The learned counsel for appellants has seriously

disputed about the involvement of the appellants herein who are

arraigned as accused Nos.7 and 8 and their identification by the

eye witnesses namely CWs.2 and 5.

4. The learned High Court Government Pleader has

contended that the test identification parade has been conducted

and these appellants have been identified by the said eye

witnesses.

5. The learned counsel for appellants submits that, he

has not received the copy of the test identification report and

seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the appeal reserving

liberty for the appellants to approach the Sessions Court after

the receipt of a copy of the report of test identification parade

conducted by the Taluka Executive Magistrate.

6. Liberty sought is granted.

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/-

JUDGE HB/-