Karnataka High Court
Chandan .K. @ Chandan Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 24 August, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:30290
CRL.A No. 1360 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1360 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
CHANDAN K. @ CHANDAN GOWDA,
S/O. KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562 123.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. B.B. SAGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
STATE BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by BANGALORE - 560 001.
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH 2. VENKATESHAPPA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O. GOVINDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT VINAYAKANAGAR,
GANESHANAGUDI, KASBA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE - 562 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 - PRESENT PHYSICALLY BEFORE THE COURT)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:30290
CRL.A No. 1360 of 2023
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL IN CRL.MISC.NO.1049/2023
DATED 19.06.2023 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.156/2023 (NOW IN SPL.C.NO.617/2023) FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S.302,307,120-B R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND
ALONG WITH SEC.3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA) 1989 PENDING BEFORE
THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU RURAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by accused No.1 praying to set
aside the order dated 19.06.2023, passed in
Crl.Misc.No.1049/2023 by the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore,
wherein the bail petition of the appellant/accused No.1
sought in respect of Crime No.156/2023 of
Madanayakanahally police station registered for the
offences punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of
IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short,
'SC/ST (POA) Act') came to be rejected.
NC: 2023:KHC:30290
CRL.A No. 1360 of 2023
2. Heard learned Senior counsel, along with the
counsel on record for appellant/accused No.1 and learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 is present and prays for dismissal of the
appeal and not to grant bail to appellant/accused No.1.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on
15.03.2023, at about 9.00 p.m., when deceased
Chandrashekar was chatting with his friends by name,
Shashank, Arunkumar, and Lokesh, near the layout in
Byragondanahally, accused No.1 came there. There was
an altercation between the deceased and accused persons
with respect to financial transactions, in which accused
No.1 threatened to teach him a lesson. At about 10.00
p.m., when the deceased Chandrashekar was riding his
motorcycle and Arunkumar and Lokesh were pillion riders,
they were proceeding in one motorcycle and another
eyewitness, Shashank, in another motorcycle in order to
go to their house. Then, in front of the house of one
Hanumantharayappa on Sondekoppa road, the accused
NC: 2023:KHC:30290
CRL.A No. 1360 of 2023
came in a Scorpio car bearing No. KA-41-M-8525, driven
by accused No.1 and dashed to the motorcycle driven by
the deceased. The deceased and pillion riders fell on the
ground, accused No.1 ran the vehicle over the deceased.
The friends of the injured took injured Chandrashekar to
the hospital. On receiving the information, the father of
the deceased went to the hospital and enquired with the
deceased, who told him that the accused No.1 with others
ran over the vehicle on him. On the very night the
deceased succumbed to injuries at 12.10 a.m. In the
morning, at 5.30 a.m., the father of the deceased lodged
the complaint. On the basis of said complaint, a case came
to be registered against this appellant, accused No.2-
Gowtham and another in Crime No.156/2023 of
Madanayakanahally PS for the offences punishable under
Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (POA) Act. Appellant/accused No.1 came to be
arrested on 18.03.2023 and he is in judicial custody. After
investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the
appellant and others for the offences punishable under
NC: 2023:KHC:30290
CRL.A No. 1360 of 2023
Sections 302, 307, 120(b) r/w Section 34 of IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The appellant/accused
No.1 filed Crl.Misc.No.1049/2023 seeking bail, and the
same came to be rejected by the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, by
order dated 19.06.2023, which is challenged in this appeal.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant would
contend that, as there is enmity between the appellant
and the deceased, he has been falsely implicated in the
case. As per the hospital records, the injured came to be
admitted with a history of road traffic accident. The
postmortem report reveals only abrasions on the body of
the deceased. Accused Nos.2 and 3, who are similarly
placed to that of this appellant, have been granted bail by
the Special Judge, and therefore, the appellant is entitled
for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The accident
register reveal that it was a road traffic accident. The
deceased and his friends were in a drunken condition, and
they might have sustained injuries in a road traffic
NC: 2023:KHC:30290
CRL.A No. 1360 of 2023
accident. The alleged incident took place at 10.00 p.m. on
15.03.2023 and the complaint came to be filed at 5.30
a.m. on the next day, and the FIR reached the Magistrate
at 5.45 p.m., so there is a delay in filing the complaint,
which shows that this appellant/accused No.1 has been
falsely implicated in the case. As the charge sheet is filed,
the petitioner is not required for further interrogation. This
appellant is aged about 24 years and there are no criminal
antecedents. The learned Special Court, without
considering all these aspects, mechanically passed the
order rejecting the bail petition of this appellant/accused
No.1. With these, he prayed to allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader would contend that in the alleged incident, one
person died and two sustained injuries. C.Ws.2 and 3 are
injured, and C.W.4 is an eyewitness to the incident. C.Ws.2
and 3 were travelling on the motor cycle, which was driven
by the deceased. C.Ws.2 and 3 also sustained injuries in the
said incident as they fell on the ground as the car driven by
NC: 2023:KHC:30290
CRL.A No. 1360 of 2023
accused No.1 hit the bike driven by the deceased. The
statements of C.Ws.2 to 4 have been recorded under Section
154 of Cr.P.C. There is a recovery of a Scorpio car at the
instance of accused No.1 under Mahazar. There are CCTV
footages regarding moments of the accused persons. The
mobile SIM of accused No.1 has been recovered at his
instance. The postmortem report reveal that the deceased
had sustained 20 injuries and died due to cardio respiratory
arrest due to injuries to vital organs such as the lungs and
brain. The appellant is not entitled for grant of bail on the
ground of parity as there is no avert act alleged against
accused Nos.2 and 3, who have been granted bail by the
Special Court. He further submits that there was a conspiracy
between accused Nos.1 to 3 to kill the deceased as he
assaulted him. Considering all these aspects, there is prima
facie case against appellant/accused No.1 and the offence
against him is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
With these, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. Having heard learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader, this
NC: 2023:KHC:30290
CRL.A No. 1360 of 2023
Court has gone through the charge sheet records and the
impugned orders.
7. As per the charge sheet material and averments of
the complaint, there was a quarrel between the deceased and
accused No.1 with regard to money lent and payment of
interest amount and the deceased assaulted accused No.1.
The statement of an eyewitness, namely, C.W.4 and the
statement of injured C.Ws.2 and 3, reveal that accused No.1
drove his Scorpio car dashed to the bike of the deceased on
which the deceased and C.Ws.2 and 3 were travelling, and
when the deceased fell on the road, accused No.1 drove his
car over him and caused severe injuries. The injured
Chandrashekar was taken to the hospital and died in the
hospital. The statements of these injured and eyewitnesses
have been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. There is a
recovery of a Scorpio car and mobile SIM at the instance of
accused No.1. The postmortem report reveal that the
deceased sustained 20 injuries, and the cause of his death
was due to cardio respiratory arrest due to injuries to vital
organs such as the lungs and brain. This appellant drove the
NC: 2023:KHC:30290
CRL.A No. 1360 of 2023
car and dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased and when
the deceased fell down, he ran over the vehicle on him and
caused severe injuries. The other accused persons, i.e.,
accused Nos.2 and 3, were in the car. There is no overt act
alleged against accused Nos.2 and 3, who have been granted
bail by the Special Court. Therefore, the appellant/accused is
not entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. Merely
because there is a delay in filing a complaint is not a ground
for the grant of bail, as the offence alleged against
appellant/accused No.1 is punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. If appellant/accused No.1 granted bail,
there are chances of threatening the complainant and other
prosecution witnesses. The appellant has not made out any
ground for setting aside the impugned order and grant of
bail.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Hdk
