Karnataka High Court
Rohith vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:26751
CRL.A No. 827 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 827 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
ROHITH
S/O YOGESH
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT No.6, RAJEEV GANDHI CIRCLE
LAGGERE MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 34.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRATHEEP K C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY RAJGOPALNAGAR POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
BENGALURU-01.
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SMT. SITAMMA
KARNATAKA W/O NARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT No.193/1, 5TH CROSS,
KASTURI LAYOUT, RAJGOPALNAGAR
BENGALURU - 79.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RENUKA RADHYA R D, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:26751
CRL.A No. 827 of 2023
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER IN SPECIAL CASE No.646/2021 DATED 25.03.2023
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSION JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.No.6/2021
(SPL.CASE No.646/2021) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 143,147,148,307,302,504,120B,201 R/W
149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND
SECTION 25(1)(B)(b) R/W 4 OF IPC BY RAJAGOPALA NAGAR
P.S., BENGALURU AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CITY
CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Sri.Pratheep K.C, learned counsel for the
appellant - accused No.7 and learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State.
2. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has not
appeared, either in person or through a counsel.
3. This appeal is filed questioning the correctness of the
order dated 25.03.2023 passed by the learned
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special
Judge, (CCH-71), Bengaluru in a Special Case
NC: 2023:KHC:26751
CRL.A No. 827 of 2023
No.646/2021, rejecting the bail application filed by
accused No.7.
4. The appellant is accused No.7. He and the other
accuses are facing trial in connection with the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 504,
120-B read with 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
(POA) Act and Section 25(1)(B)(b) read with 4 of Indian
Arms Act. The F.I.R was registered on 09.01.2021, at the
instance of respondent No.2, who is the sister of the
deceased namely Sri.Srinivas. The F.I.R discloses enmity
between the deceased and one Sri.Bharath, who is not
alive.
5. The actual incident took place on 09.01.2021, when
the deceased and respondent No.2 were present in the site
where a house was being constructed. It appears that the
deceased was getting the house constructed for his sister
ie, respondent No.2. When the deceased was sitting in the
site, at about 1.00 pm., seven to eight persons came
stating that the deceased was responsible for the death of
NC: 2023:KHC:26751
CRL.A No. 827 of 2023
Sri.Bharath and assaulted him indiscriminately with the
weapons such as long, dragon and machete etc., and left
the place. The deceased succumbed to the injuries.
6. As argued by learned counsel Sri.Pratheep K.C,
respondent No.2 was an eye witness to the incident. In
her report to the police, she stated that seven to eight
persons came to the place where construction work was
going on. At that stage, the deceased was able to identify
their names as Sri.Manoji, Sri.Appi, Sri.Shashi, Sri.Manju-
Andrahalli, Sri.Abhi-Hitachi. That means, the deceased
himself was able to identify those persons. According to
respondent No.2, they were the persons who inflicted
injuries to her brother.
7. One Sri. Sudeep, son of respondent No.2 was an eye
witness. His statement was recorded on 13.01.2021. In
his statement, he has stated that twelve to fifteen persons
came to that place and they inflicted the injuries to his
uncle. His statement also discloses the names of
NC: 2023:KHC:26751
CRL.A No. 827 of 2023
Sri.Manoji, Sri.Appi, Sri.Manja, Sri.Andrahalli Abhi, Hitachi
among twelve to fifteen persons who came there.
8. Then the Investigating Officer appears to have
collected the CCTV footages and in this regard, he
recorded the statement of one Sri.Raghu - CW25.
According to the visuals found in the CCTV footages, eight
persons were found going towards the place of incident by
riding three motor bikes. Seeing the footages, the
Investigating Officer was able to recognize one person as
Sri.Manoj ie., accused No.2. Now, sofar as the appellant -
accused No.7 is concerned, it appears that he was
implicated on the basis of the confession statements given
by the co-accused.
9. Arguments of learned High Court Government
Pleader is that CWs.1, 12 to 14, 19 to 24 and the injured -
CW13 have identified this appellant - accused No.7 as one
of the person who assaulted the deceased with deadly
weapons and charge sheet materials show prima facie
NC: 2023:KHC:26751
CRL.A No. 827 of 2023
case against this appellant - accused No.7 for the offences
alleged against him.
10. If the materials are assessed, it appears that one
Sri.Shashi, whose name the deceased himself took, just
before the incident took place, was left out from the
charge sheet. When respondent No.2 was able to see
seven to eight persons coming to that place with weapons
for killing her brother, the statement her son Sri.Sudeep
shows that twelve to fifteen persons came to that place.
The name of the appellant - accused No.7 is not
forthcoming either in the F.I.R or in the statement of
Sri.Sudeep - CW12. Even though the said Sri.Sudeep -
CW12 was available, his statement came to be recorded
after four days ie., on 13.01.2021.
11. Accused Nos.8, 9, 12 and 17 who were similarly
placed to that of this appellant - accused No.7 have been
granted bail by this Court in Crl.A.Nos.2179/2022,
68/2023, 1864/2022 and 2280/2022. It is alleged that
this appellant is a rowdy sheeter, so also, the said accused
NC: 2023:KHC:26751
CRL.A No. 827 of 2023
Nos.8, 9, 12 and 17. The involvement of this appellant -
accused No.7 in commission of the alleged offences is to
be ascertained only at the trial, as the charge sheet is
filed. The appellant - accused No.7 is not required for
custodial interrogation.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order
requires to be set-aside and the appellant - accused No.7
is entitled for grant of bail, by imposing stringent
conditions. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The order passed by the
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special
Judge, (CCH-71), Bengaluru dated 25.03.2023 in Special
Case No.646/2021, on the application of the appellant is
set-aside. The said application is allowed. The appellant
is admitted to bail, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The appellant - accused No.7 shall execute
a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
NC: 2023:KHC:26751
CRL.A No. 827 of 2023
(Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
(ii) The appellant - accused No.7 shall not
tamper with the evidence and threaten the
witnesses.
(iii) The appellant - accused No.7 shall
regularly appear before the Trial Court, till
conclusion of the trial.
(iv) The appellant - accused No.7 shall mark
his attendance in the jurisdictional police
station once in a week, preferably on Sunday
between 9.00 am and 12.00 noon, till
conclusion of the trial.
(v) The appellant - accused No.7 shall not get
involved in any other criminal case in future.
If the appellant - accused No.7 gets involved
in any criminal case in future, the Trial Court
NC: 2023:KHC:26751
CRL.A No. 827 of 2023
may cancel the bail soon after the same is
brought to its notice.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH
