Shri. Rahul S/O. Maruti Patil vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7419 Kant

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2022

                            BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100329 OF 2021

BETWEEN

SHRI. RAHUL S/O. MARUTI PATIL
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: TILES FITTER,
R/O. BELAGUNDI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI - 591108.
                                                .....APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VISHWANATH BADIGER, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REPRESENTED BY ITS,
      STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      DHARWAD BENCH,
      AT: DHARWAD-580001,
      THROUGH BELAGAVI RURAL P.S.

2.    SRI. RAMCHANDRA MALLAPPA KAMBLE
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. VENGURLA ROAD,
      SULAGA VILLAGE(HINDALAGA),
      TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI - 591108.
                                               .....RESPONDENT
(BY SMT GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)


    THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF THE SC AND
ST ACT SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE
                                    2




APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.115/2020
REGISTERED BY BELAGAVI RURAL POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 120B, 302 READ WITH SECTION 149
OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND
AMENDMENT POA ACT, 2015.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused No.5 under

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

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC & ST (POA) Act')

for setting aside the order of rejection of bail passed by the III

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl. Misc.

No.621/2021 dated 14.07.2021.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the

appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent.

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

one Shri. Ramachandrappa S/o. Mallappa Kamble, the father of the

deceased-Rohini lodged complaint to the Police on 26.09.2020

alleging that his daughter-Rohini the deceased has given in

marriage with the Gangappa and prior to that, it was a love

marriage and they were residing in Machche village. On

26.09.2020 at 4.50 p.m., he came to know through his son Rohan

that his daughter-Rohini and another woman were lying in the pool

of blood due to injuries. Immediately, he went to the spot and saw

his daughter's dead body and dead body of one Rajashree who is

also a neighbor of the deceased. And he has enquired with other

four persons, who were present on the spot, they have stated two

persons were killed by stabbing the both woman and ran away in

their motorcycle. Therefore, a case came to be registered against

unknow accused persons for the offence punishable under Section

302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Immediately, on the same day,

the complainant has given further statement stating that his son-in-

law Gangappa previously married one-Mallawwa and thereafter he

has residing separately. Subsequently, after the marriage of his

daughter with the Gangappa, he came to know as his son-in-law

had illegal intimacy with one Kalpana the accused No.1. Six

months back prior to the incident the said Kalpana came and picked

up quarrel with the daughter-Rohini and she has threatened for

making criminal intimidation whether she has to live with the

Gangappa or deceased has to live. Thereafter the police arrested

these petitioners and other accused persons and remanded them in

judicial custody. It was reveal that the accused Nos.1 and 2

contacted the accused No.3 and the accused No.3 said to have

introduced the accused Nos.4 and 5 who said to be supari killers

and paid them `30,000/- in advance for eliminating the deceased-

Rohini. Accordingly, on the date of incident with the deceased-

Rohini while walking on the road, the accuse persons stabbed with

a knife and committed murder, at the time, another woman

Rajashree accompanied the Rohini, she tried to rescue her.

Therefore, they also committed the murder of Rajashree and fled

away in their motor-cycle. Apprehending the arrest in the hands of

Police, the accused person has filed bail petition before the Sessions

Judge, which came to be rejected. In view of the facts and

circumstances, this application has to be filed for setting aside the

order of rejection of bail.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner /accused No.5

has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged

offences. There is no eye witness to the incident. The accused

Nos.1 to 3 have already granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions. Hence,

he prayed for granting bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent seriously objected the bail petition and contended that

the accused Nos.1 to 3 were granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench

on the ground that they have not committed murder but the

accused Nos.4 and 5 have committed the murder and therefore the

ground of parity will not be available. Hence, prayed for dismissal

of the petition.

6. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent, perused the records.

7. The following point that arises for consideration is:

"Whether the appellant made out a case for

setting aside the order challenged in the appeal and

he is entitled for grant of bail?"

8. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of records

especially the order passed by this Court as well as the order

passed by the Trial Court, admittedly the accused Nos.1 to 3 were

granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Appeal

No.100178/2021, Crl. Appeal No.101478/2020 and Crl. Appeal

No.100116/2021. As per the judgments passed by the Co-ordinate

Bench by this Court for granting bail to the accused Nos.1 to 3,

where the Co-ordinate Bench is clearly stated that main allegations

made against the accused Nos.4 and 5 and were actually

committing the murder of two women while walking on the road.

This Court has already rejected the bail petition of this appellant,

where the accused Nos.4 and 5 are the supari killers and accused

No.1 is having illicit relationship with the husband of the deceased-

Rohini. The said Kalpana told the deceased-Rohini to leave the

Gangappa and she wants to live with him and when the

complainant and said Gangappa were living separately, the

deceased-Rohini was also pregnant for five months. The accused

Nos.1 and 2 contacted the accused No.3 for committing the murder

of the deceased-Rohini. Accordingly, the accused No.3 is said to

have introduced the accused Nos.4 and 5 who were supari killers.

Accordingly, accused No.1 said to be paid `30,000/- in advance and

agreed to pay `70,000/- after killing the deceased-Rohini.

9. Thereafter, the accused Nos.4 and 5 were stabbed the

deceased-Rohini when she was walking on the road along with one

Rajashree and they stabbed her with knife and committed murder.

The Post Mortem report reveals that the dead was caused due to

the stabbed injuries and also neck injuries. The accused persons

not only committed murder of deceased-Rohin but also committed a

murder of child by stabbing into the stomach of the deceased-

Rohini and also commit a murder of innocent lady Rajashree who

was accompanied with the deceased on the way while walking on

the road.

10. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, the

Trial Court has rightly rejected the bail petition and this Court also

already rejected the bail petition. The Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court has granted bail to the accused Nos.1 to 3 who were not

actually participated and committed murder. This appellant and

accused No.4, by using knife committed the murder. The police

recovered the knife and blood stained clothes and motor-cycle from

the accused Nos. 4 and 5.

11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to accused No.5. Hence,

the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SMM