Karnataka High Court
Sri Shashidar vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 August, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:27363
CRL.A No. 1157 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1157 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHASHIDAR,
S/O. SHIVAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KAMBALU VILLAGE,
SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABHILASH KUMAR M. N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M. R. NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY DABASPETE POLICE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SRI. LAKSHMANA,
KARNATAKA
S/O. HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SHIVAGANGE,
SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RENUKARADHYA R. D, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:27363
CRL.A No. 1157 of 2023
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE BAIL ORDERS DATED
23.03.2023 PASSED IN SPL.CASE.NO.540/2018 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND
ALLOW THE APPEAL AND RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR
BAIL FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(2)(v) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set
aside the order dated 15.03.2023 passed in Spl. Case
No.540/2018 by II Additional District and Sessions and Special
Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. The impugned
order has been passed on the bail application of the
appellant/accused, rejecting his prayer to grant bail sought in
Spl. Case No.540/2018 registered for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
HCGP for respondent No.1/State. In spite of service of notice,
respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.
NC: 2023:KHC:27363
CRL.A No. 1157 of 2023
3. The charge sheet has been filed against the
appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302
of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. Earlier, the appellant/accused has approached this
Court seeking bail in Crl.P.No.5534/2019, and the same came
to be rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.01.2020.
Thereafter, in the midst of the trial, the appellant/accused filed
bail application before the Special Court, which came to be
rejected by the Special Court by the impugned order which has
been challenged in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that the eyewitness to the incident has turned hostile and there
are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, the
appellant/accused is entitled to grant of bail.
5. Learned HCGP would contend that mainly because
the eyewitnesses have turned hostile and there are
inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W.1, the same is not a
ground for grant of bail as observed by the learned Special
Judge in the impugned order. The appellant/accused is not
having permanent address and he has been driven out of the
house by his parents', he had taken refuge in the temple and if
NC: 2023:KHC:27363
CRL.A No. 1157 of 2023
the accused is released on bail, it is difficult to secure his
presence. Considering all these aspects, Special Court has
rightly rejected his bail application by the impugned order
which does not call for any interference by this Court.
6. The allegation against the appellant/accused is that
he has committed the murder of the wife of the complainant as
she refused to cohabit with him by assaulting her with a knife
on the chest and other parts of the body. The
appellant/accused has been driven out of the house by his
parents' and the complainant and his wife have given him
shelter in the house.
7. The earlier bail petition of this appellant/accused
has been rejected by this Court as there is a prima facie case
against him and there are likelihood of the appellant/accused
tampering with the witnesses. Now, the appellant/accused is
seeking bail on the ground that eyewitnesses have turned
hostile and there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1.
The evidence is already recorded by the Trial Court. The same
cannot be appreciated in the petition seeking bail. The trial of
the case is at its fag end and only two witnesses have to be
cross-examined by the appellant/accused. The
NC: 2023:KHC:27363
CRL.A No. 1157 of 2023
appellant/accused changed his counsel when the case has been
posted for recording the statement under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. and subsequently, he filed application seeking recall of
the witnesses for cross-examination. As the trial is at fag end,
if the appellant/accused is granted bail, it is difficult to secure
his presence, as he is not having permanent place of abode as
he has been driven out of the house by his parents' and he had
taken shelter in the temple, as observed by the Special Court.
8. Considering all these aspects, the learned Special
Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of the
appellant/accused by the impugned order. There are no
grounds to set aside the impugned order and grant bail to the
appellant/accused. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
The Special Court is directed to dispose of the case as
expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMC
CT: AVB
