Karnataka High Court
Sri Kiran Kumar B N vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2023
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45753
CRL.A No. 2214 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2214 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KIRAN KUMAR B N
S/O LATE SRI. NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT NO.3, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
NEAR DURGA CONDIMENTS
CHOWDESHWARINAGARA
LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560 058.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V R BALARAJ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SHO OF NANDINI LAYOUT
POLICE STATION
Digitally BENGALURU DISTRICT
signed by REPRESENTED BY
SUMITHRA THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: BENGALURU-560001.
High Court
of Karnataka 2. SMT. PUSHPA
W/O LATE SRI. RAVI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING OPPOSITE TO SHIVA TEMPLE
LAGGERE MAIN ROAD,
CHOWDESHWARINAGAR, LAGGERE
BENGALURU-560 058.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1/STATE,
SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45753
CRL.A No. 2214 of 2023
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2023
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.10754/2023 BY THE LEARNED LXX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO
HIM BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL DIRECTING THE LEARNED LXX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL IN SPL.CASE NO.1752/2023
ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.154/2023 OF NANDINI LAYOUT
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, U/S 120B, 149 AND 302 OF IPC
AND SEC. 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred under Section 14(A)(2) by
the accused praying to set aside the order dated
18.11.2023 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.10754/2023 by the Court of LXX Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and consequently to
enlarge him on bail in Special Case No.1752/2023 arising
out of Crime No.154/2023 of Nandini Layout Police
Station.
2. Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 8
for offences punishable under Section 120B, 149 and 302
of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and
NC: 2023:KHC:45753
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( for
short 'SC/ST (POA)' Act).
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1/State and learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2/complainant and perused the material on record.
4. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that, on
account of previous enmity accused Nos.1 and 2 along
with other accused persons committed the murder of
complainant's husband by name Ravi on 24.05.2023 at
around 11.15 p.m., by assaulting him with deadly
weapons.
5. A perusal of the order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge rejecting the application filed under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. does not indicate that proper
reasons are assigned while disposing of the said
application. The learned Sessions Judge has only stated
that the material eye witness has specifically stated before
the police about the involvement of the accused persons
NC: 2023:KHC:45753
and as argued by the learned HCGP, if the accused is
granted conditional bail, there is possibility of tampering
the prosecution witnesses. In the impugned order the
contentions raised on behalf of the accused has not been
adverted to.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh
Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana
(Koli) and Another reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230, has
held as under;
"38. x x x x x It is a well-settled principle that in
determining as to whether bail should be granted,
the High Court, or for that matter, the Sessions Court
deciding an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C
would not launch upon a detailed evaluation of the
facts on merits since a criminal trial is still to take
place. These observations while adjudicating upon
bail would also not be binding on the outcome of the
trial. But the court granting bail cannot obviate its
duty to apply a judicial mind and to record reasons,
brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding
whether or not to grant bail. x x x x x".
39. Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is a matter
involving the exercise of judicial discretion. Judicial
discretion in granting or refusing bail-as in the case
NC: 2023:KHC:45753
of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a
judicial institution- is not unstructured. The duty to
record reasons is a significant safeguard which
ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the
court is exercised in a judicious manner. The
recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that
the thought process underlying the order is subject
to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of
reason and justice. This Court in Chaman Lal v. State
of U.P. in a similar vein has held that an order of a
High Court which does not contain reasons for prima
facie concluding that a bail should be granted is liable
to be set aside for non-application of mind. This
Court observed: (SCC p.527, para.8)
8. Even on a cursory perusal the High Court's
orders shows complete non-application of
mind. Though detailed examination of the
evidence and elaborate documentation of
the merits of the case is to be avoided by
the Court while passing orders on bail
applications, yet a court dealing with the
bail application should be satisfied as to
whether there is a prima facie case, but
exhaustive exploration of the merits of the
case is not necessary. The court dealing
with the application for bail is required to
exercise its discretion in a judicious
manner and not as a matter of course."
7. One of the main contention raised by the
learned counsel for appellants is that according to the
NC: 2023:KHC:45753
prosecution there are four eye witnesses, but they have
not alleged any specific overt acts against the petitioner
that he has assaulted the deceased with any weapon and
therefore, he has been falsely implicated. As held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, though a detailed discussion on the
merits of the case is not warranted, but the Court
considering a bail application has a duty to apply a judicial
mind and record reasons. The learned Sessions Judge has
not assigned proper reasons and hence, the order is liable
to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, the order dated 18.11.2023 passed
in Criminal Misc No.10754/2023 by the Court of LXX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set
aside.
9. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to
dispose of the application filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., by accused No.4 afresh after hearing both the
parties, in accordance with law within a period of 15 days
NC: 2023:KHC:45753
from the date of appearance and production of a copy of
this order by the learned counsel for appellant.
Appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HB
