Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagesh D vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08 T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1237 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
Sri Nag esh D,
S/o Dasapp a,
Aged about 28 years,
R/o Seekanahalli Villag e,
Sulag iri Taluk,
Krishnag iri District,
Tamil Nad u-635 001.
...Appellant
(By Sri M.R. Nanjund a Gowd a, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By Vemgal police,
Kolar District,
Represented by
State Pub lic Prosecutor,
Hig h Court Build ings,
Dr. Ambed kar Veedi,
Beng aluru - 560 001.
2. Smt. Rathnamma
W/o Late Narayanapp a,
Aged about 65 years,
R/at A Block, Narasapura,
Kolar Taluk- 563 133.
3. Smt. Roop a
W/o Late Krishna Murthy
Aged about 34 years,
:: 2 ::
R/at "A" Block, Narasap ura
Kolar Taluk and District.
...Respondents
(By Sri K. Nag eshwarapp a, HCGP for R1;
R2 - served)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
14(A)(2) of the Sched uled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, p raying to set
aside the ord er d ated 26.05.2022 p assed in
Spl.S.C.No.2/2022 on the file of the II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Kolar and allow the
app eal and grant an order of b ail to the appellant for
the offences punishab le under Sections 120-B, 143,
201, 302, 364 R/W Sec. 149 of IPC and Sec.3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders this
day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act ['SC/ST (POA) Act'
for short], challenging the order dated 26.05.2022
by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Kolar, rejecting the appellant's application filed
:: 3 ::
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in
Spl.S.C.No.2/2022.
2. Heard Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, learned
counsel for the appellant and the learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-
State. When notice was ordered to respondent
No.2-Rathnamma, it was returned with an
endorsement that she was dead. Thereafter the
wife of the deceased, namely, Smt. Roopa was
made a party. Learned HCGP files a memo along
with police report stating that the notice on Smt.
Roopa has been served. But she has not
appeared.
3. The prosecution case is like this:
On 27.01.2014, Smt. Rathnamma, the mother
of deceased made a missing complaint to Vemgal
police stating that her son Krishnamurthy, who left
the house at 5pm on 08.12.2013 did not return
even after late night. Then on 28.12.2021, Smt.
:: 4 ::
Roopa, the third respondent made one more report
to the police stating that the villagers informed
her that when somebody was quarrelling with
accused No.1 Rajesh, the latter threatened the
former stating that he would kill him in the way he
killed Krishnamurhty. Entertaining suspicion about
involvement of accused No.1, she reported to the
police that since her husband was having illicit
relationship with the wife of accused No.1, he
might have killed her husband. On the basis of
this information, the police registered FIR in Crime
No.28/2014 for the offences punishable under
Sections 363, 302, 201, 120B read with Section 34
of IPC, held investigation and filed charge sheet
against 7 accused. The appellant is accused No.2.
4. As is evident, FIR in relation to homicidal
death of Krishnamurthy was registered 8 years
after the mother gave missing complaint. There
are no eye witnesses and the entire case rests on
:: 5 ::
the circumstantial evidence. It appears that there
is no recovery of the incriminating material at the
instance of the appellant. The court below has
rejected the bail only on the ground that existence
of prima-facie case could be made out because
accused No.1 and the appellant led the police and
showed the place where they had buried the dead
body of the deceased.
5. I do not think that this ground alone is
sufficient to come to conclusion that prima-facie
materials exist implicating involvement of the
appellant in the commission of crime. Unless the
prosecution establishes all the circumstances
indicating involvement of the accused in killing of
Krishnamurthy, it is impossible to hold at this
stage that involvement of appellant is forthcoming.
Therefore I find that the trial court has erred in
rejecting the bail application. Even the
registration of FIR for the offences under the
:: 6 ::
provisions of Atrocities Act also does not appear to
be correct, because, investigation does not
disclose the existence of caste based rivalry
leading to killing of Krishnamurthy. As is evident
from the charge sheet, motive appears to be the
illicit relationship between the deceased and the
wife of accused No.1. in this view, I come to
conclusion that this appeal deserves to be allowed.
Hence the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
The order passed by the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Kolar dated 26.05.2022 in
Spl.S.C.No.2/2022 on the application of
the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C.,
is set aside. The said application is
allowed.
The appellant is admitted to bail on
obtaining from him a bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) and
:: 7 ::
providing two sureties for the likesum
to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The appellant is also subjected to
following conditions:-
i. He shall not tamper the evidence
and threaten the witnesses.
ii. He shall regularly appear before the
trial court till conclusion of the trial.
iii. He shall not get involved in any
other criminal case/s in future. In
case of any FIR is registered against
them, the same will be considered
for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Kmv/-
