Sri Nagaraju H R @ Naga @ Naga vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11841 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 14 T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1221 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Sri Nag araju H.R.
@ Nag a @ Naga
S/o Nagaling aiah
Aged about 20 years
R/at Harakanahalli Villag e
Athag uru Hob ali
Madduru Taluk
Mandya District-571476
                                               ...Appellant
(By Sri Dharanesha, Advocate)

AND:

1.    The State of Karnataka
      By Kesthur Police Station
      Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor
      Hig h Court of Karnataka Building
      Beng aluru-560001

2.    Smt. Ambujakshi
      W/o Ravindra
      Aged about Major
      Resid ent of Navile Villag e
      Athaguru Hob ali
      Maddur Taluk
      Mandya District-571476
                                            ...Respondents
(By Sri K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1;
     R2 - served)
                                 :: 2 ::


      This    Criminal    Appeal       is   filed      under    Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside
the order d ated 07.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble
V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mand ya in
Spl.C.No.65/2021 and etc,.

      This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission
this d ay, the Court d elivered the following:

                          JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2)

of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act ['SC/ST Act' for

short] challenging the order dated 07.04.2022

passed by the V Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Mandya, rejecting the appellant's

application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri Dharanesha, learned counsel

for the appellant and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

Respondent No.2 has not appeared before the

Court in-spite of service of notice on her.

:: 3 ::

3. The case pertains to killing of an

Advocate by name Ravindra. The police having

registered FIR in Crime No.1/2021, held

investigation and filed charge sheet. The

appellant is accused No.6. This is a case based on

circumstantial evidence and the charge sheet

indicates that accused 1 and 2 are the main

persons involved in commission of the crime. So

far as the appellant is concerned, charge sheet

shows that he was asked to give information about

possible arrival of the deceased to his agricultural

land. Except this, nothing more is attributed to

the appellant.

4. The appellant brought to the notice of

the court below about enlarging accused No.4 on

bail by this Court in Crl.A.No.1783/2021. The

appellant claimed parity with accused No.4. In

para 18 of the order, the court below has held that

admitting accused No.4 to bail itself will not :: 4 ::

entitle the appellant to claim bail on the ground of

parity. This reason appears to be not convincing.

The charge sheet indicates that accused 1 and 2

have played a major role. Accused No.4 was a

member of the conspiracy. It is not

understandable as to how the appellant cannot

plead parity as a changed circumstance for

claiming bail.

5. Whenever there are no eye witnesses to

the incident and the case is based on

circumstantial evidence, if bail is sought after

investigation, the court may take a liberal view for

granting bail. Unless and until all the

circumstances in the chain are proved, it cannot

be said that prima-facie materials are available.

But it is not so when the case is based on direct

evidence. In this view, I am of the opinion that

the impugned order is not sustainable and :: 5 ::

therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed.

Hence the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

The order passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya dated 07.04.2022 in Spl.C.No.65/2021 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 his executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only) and 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          with    the
            evidence            and             threaten       the
            witnesses.

     ii.    He shall regularly appear before the

trial court till conclusion of the trial.

:: 6 ::

iii. Till conclusion of the trial, the appellant shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police (Kesthur Police Station) once in 15 days, preferably on a Sunday between 9 am and 12 noon.

iv. He shall not get involved in any criminal case/s in future. In case of any FIR is registered against him, the same will be considered for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-