Santosh S/O Rangappa vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7425 Kant

                             1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200062/2022

Between:
Santosh S/o Rangappa,
Age: 29 Years, Occ: Private Driver at
Gopi Travellers, Bommanasandra,
R/o. Janata Colony, Lingasugur,
Now at R.K.Shetty, 4th Cross, 2nd Phase,
Gokul building, Bommasandra,
Bengaluru-560 010.
                                               ... Appellant
(By Sri. Shivanand V.Pattanshetti, Advocate)

And:
1.     The State of Karnataka
       R/by Addl. SPP
       High Court of Karnataka
       Kalaburagi Bench-585 107
       (Through Lingasugur P.S.,
       Dist. Raichur-584 101).

2.    Smt. Adamma W/o Hussainappa Talvar,
      Age: 49 Years, Occ: Labour,
      R/o Pinchanipura, Tq: Lingasugur,
      Dist: Raichur-584 101.
                                           ... Respondents
(By Sri.H.S.Shankar, HCGP for R1;
By Sri. Basavaraj R.Math, Advocate for R2)
                                  2




        This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A of
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities Act-1989,      praying to set aside the impugned
order    dated    28.01.2022     passed     in        Spl.    Case   (A)
No.1061/2021 by the Special Court for Cases Under the
SC/ST (PoA) Act and 1st Addl. Sessions Judge at Raichur;
grant the regular bail to the appellant/accused No.1 in Spl.
Case.(A).     No.1061/2021           (Lingasugur         P.S.     Crime
No.187/2021) for the offences punishable U/s 304 R/w 34
of IPC & U/s 3(2)(v) of SC/ST PA New Act-2015.


        This appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the
Court delivered the following:

                          JUDGMENT

The appellant-accused No.1 is before this Court

seeking grant of bail under Section 14-A of the Scheduled

Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) in Crime

No.187/2021 of Lingasugur Police Station, registered for

the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w section 34

of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), and under

Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, on the basis of the first

information lodged by the mother of the deceased

Parashuram. Subsequently charge sheet came to be filed

for the offence punishable under Sections 304 r/w section

34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act pending

before the Special Court and I Additional Sessions Judge,

at Raichur in Spl.Case (A) No.1061/2021.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the informant

Smt. Adamma, mother of the deceased filed the first

information against accused Nos.1 and 2 stating that they

have taken her son deceased Parashuram to canal water

even though they knew that the deceased does not know

swimming. The accused pushed the deceased into the

water and they are responsible for his death. On the basis

of the information, FIR was registered for the offence

punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 of IPC and the

investigation is undertaken. After investigation, the charge

sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under

Sections 304 r/w section 34 of IPC.

3. Heard Sri Shivanand Pattanshetti, learned

Counsel for the appellant and Sri H.S.Shankar, learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State

and Sri Basavaraj R. Math, learned counsel for respondent

No.2. Perused the materials on record.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted

that the appellant is arrayed as accused No.1 and he was

apprehended on 08.10.2021. Since then, he is in judicial

custody. Even though the FIR was registered for the

offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 of IPC, after

due investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence

punishable under Sections 304 r/w 34 of IPC. Therefore, it

is clear that the appellant was not having any intention to

cause the death of the deceased. Even if the case of the

prosecution is to be believed as it is, the appellant is

innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. He

has been falsely implicated in the matter without any

basis. Since the investigation is already completed,

detention of the appellant in custody would amount to pre-

trial punishment. The appellant is the permanent resident

of the address mentioned in the cause title to the appeal

and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions

that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to

allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for

respondent No.2, opposing the appeal submitted that

serious allegations are made against the appellant for

having committed the offence. The specific allegations are

made against the appellant and another that even though,

they knew that the deceased does not know swimming,

they pushed the deceased into the canal water and they

are responsible for his death. It is the clear case of offence

punishable under section 302 of IPC. But the charge sheet

is filed for the offence under Section 304 of IPC and the

trial is still pending.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further

submits that the appellant is the permanent resident of

Bengaluru and therefore, his presence cannot easily be

secured during the trial. Therefore, he is not entitled for

grant of bail. Hence, they pray for dismissal of the appeal.

7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would

arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for

the following:

REASONS

8. The allegations made against the appellant and

another accused are of serious nature for having

committed the offence. Even though initially the case was

registered under sections 302 r/w 34 of IPC, after

investigation, the charge sheet is filed for the offence

punishable under Sections 304 r/w 34 of IPC. Admittedly,

the appellant is not required for any further investigation

or for any other purpose except to ensure his presence

before the Trial Court. Therefore, detention of the

appellant in custody would amount to infringement of his

valuable right to life and liberty. punishment. Hence, I am

of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged

on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the

apprehension expressed by the learned High Court

Government Pleader that the appellant may abscond or

may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

9. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in

Crime No. 187/2021 of Lingasugur Police Station, on

obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the

following conditions:

a) The appellant shall not commit similar offence.

b) The appellant shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

c) The appellant shall appear before the Court as and when required.

In case, the appellant violates any of the conditions

as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Trial

Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to

verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of

the documents furnished by the appellant and the sureties

and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to

be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days.

The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the

sureties for the purpose of releasing the appellant on bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VNR