Karnataka High Court
Ankush vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 16 August, 2023
Bench: Venkatesh Naik Vntj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6455
CRL.A No. 200131 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200131 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
ANKUSH
S/O. PANDURANG DHODTALE
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANDAGARWADI
BASAVAKALYAN
BIDAR-585 401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BASAVAKALYAN RURAL POLICE STATION,
BASAVAKALYAN, BIDAR-585 401.
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC
by SHILPA R PROSECUTOR
TENIHALLI
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location:
HIGH COURT KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107.
OF
KARNATAKA 2. GOVIND
S/O. VITHAL RAO MAMMALE
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
RESIDENT OF KUNALI VILLAGE
OMERGA-413 606 (MAHARASHTRA STATE)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1, AND
R-2 IS SERVED)
***
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6455
CRL.A No. 200131 of 2023
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
20.01.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS COURT, BIDAR, SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN IN CRL.
MISC. NO.5202/2022 AND FURTHER, BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE
APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.123/2022 REGISTERED BY
BASAVAKALYAN RURAL POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF
SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, AS PER
CHARGE SHEET, PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, SITTING AT
BASAVAKALYAN.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant/accused has filed this appeal under
Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act')
praying to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.123 of 2022
of Basavakalyan Rural Police registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, (for short, 'IPC') and under Section 3(2)(v) of
the Act.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellant and the learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1-State.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6455
CRL.A No. 200131 of 2023
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that,
on 10-10-2022 at about 11:00 A.M., respondent No.2-
Govind lodged a complaint against unknown person
alleging that he received information from one Santosh
Maruti Mammal that his sister, namely Vimalabai, has
been murdered with deadly weapon in her house. During
the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer
arrested the accused and based on his voluntary
statement, incriminating material were collected and he
was remanded to judicial custody.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended
that the appellant is innocent of the alleged offence; there
is no eyewitness to the incident and case rests on
circumstantial evidence. Investigating Officer has recorded
the statement of the last seen theory after seven days of
the incident. The appellant is a law abiding citizen and he
is ready to abide by any of the conditions to be imposed
by this Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6455
CRL.A No. 200131 of 2023
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1-State has filed the
statement of objections and contended that there is
prima-facie case made out against the appellant.
Investigating Officer has conducted investigation and
during the course of investigation, he has recorded the
voluntary statement of the appellant and based on his
statement, incriminating material were collected and came
to know that the appellant has committed the murder of
the deceased. If the appellant is granted bail, he may
tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he prayed
for dismissing the appeal.
6. On careful perusal of the material on record, it
goes to show that based on the call details between the
accused and the deceased and on the basis of the
voluntary statement of the accused, the weapon was
seized which was used for commission of offence.
Admittedly, the case is based on circumstantial evidence.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6455
CRL.A No. 200131 of 2023
On perusal of the First Information Report, the name of
the accused was not mentioned, but during investigation,
the Investigating Officer got to know about the
involvement of the accused in the crime and hence, he
recorded the voluntary statement of the accused and at
his instance, item No.7-iron rod was seized. On perusal of
the Post-Mortem examination report, there are two
contusions and laceration on four different parts of the
head and the death is due to multiple injuries. On perusal
of the F.S.L. report at Sl. No.8, the shirt seized by the
Investigating Officer contains blood stains, but the accused
has not offered any explanation in this regard. Prima-
facie, it appears that there is involvement of the appellant
in the crime. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ANIL
KUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF NCT, DELHI, reported in
(2018) 12 SCC 129 has held that in crimes like murder,
detention of the accused is not a ground to grant bail.
Hence, at this juncture, the appellant is not entitled for
bail.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6455
CRL.A No. 200131 of 2023
Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KVK
