Karnataka High Court
Shri. Vikas Alias Vishnu S/O Waman ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 December, 2023
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14834
CRL.A No. 100478 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100478 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SHRI. VIKAS @ VISHNU S/O WAMAN BENNALKAR,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK,
R/O H.NO. 485, RAM NAGAR, 2ND CROSS,
KANGRALI K.H., TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH BADIGER, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD
THROUGH APMC YARD P.S.
2. SHRI. RAJU MARUTI PATIL,
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. RICKSHAW DRIVER,
R/O H.NO 4501, CHAVAT GALLI,
Digitally signed
by
VIJAYALAKSHMI VIJAYALAKSHMI
BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590016.
M KANKUPPI M KANKUPPI
Date: 2023.12.21
16:20:59 +0530 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF SC/ST
ACT SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND ENLARGE THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL IN SPL. CASE NO. 170/2021
(CRIME NO.38/2021 REGISTERED BY APMC POLICE STATION)
PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DIST AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 302, 307,
504 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST POA
AMENDMENT ACT 2015; IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14834
CRL.A No. 100478 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by accused No.2
challenging the order dated 05.09.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.1001/2023 by the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi,
whereunder the bail petition of this appellant-
accused No.2 sought in APMC PS Crime No.38/2021
registered for the offences under Sections 302,
307 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC',
for brevity) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of
the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SPl.Case
No.170/2021) came to be rejected.
2. Heard the leaned counsel for the
appellant-accused No.2 and the learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.
Respondent No.2, in spite of service of notice
remained absent and unrepresented.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14834
3. The case of the prosecution is that, one
Raju Maruti Patil, has filed a complaint stating that
Rajeshwar @ Gabarya Patil (deceased) is his son.
That on 14.04.2021, deceased Rajeshwar @
Gabarya and his two friends by name Omkar
Shrikant Ingale(CW8) and Aniketh Anil Mudhumat
(CW9), had been to the shop of Chandrakant
Prabhakar More to receive Rs.2000/- from him. At
that time, accused No.1 was there and he asked
the said deceased and his two friends as to
whether they want to drink liquor. The deceased
and his two friends went along with accused No.1
to his house situated at 2 n d Cross, Kangrali KH,
Belagavi to consume liquor. In the said house,
accused No.1 gave a liquor bottle to the deceased
and his two friends. They drank the said liquor in
the bottle and thereafter they demanded more
liquor from accused No.1. There was verbal
quarrel ensued between them over the said matter
in the house of accused No.1. Thereafter accused
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14834
No.1 called his younger brother i.e., accused No.2
and his son Vinayak (child in conflict with law) and
informed them that he gave a liquor bottle to the
deceased and his two friends and they are
quarreling with him after drinking the said liquor,
demanding more liquor. When accused No.2 and
the child in conflict with law entered into the
scene, the deceased and his two friends (CW8 and
CW9), came out of the house of accused No.1. In
the meantime, accused No.2 took up a bamboo
stick and accused No.1 took up an iron rod in their
hands and came out of their house. The deceased
and his two friends (CW8 and CW9), on looking to
these accused Nos. 1 and 2 holding the bamboo
stick and iron rod, began running. Accused Nos. 1
and 2 chased the deceased and his two friends
(CW8 and CW9) and near APMC new gate, accused
No.2 heavily assaulted on the head of the
deceased with bamboo stick, with an intention to
cause his death. Accused No.1 assaulted CW9 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14834
Aniketh with iron rod on his head with an intention
to cause his death. The deceased collapsed on the
spot, whereas his two friends i.e., CW8 and CW9,
fled away from the spot. The deceased Rajeshwar
@ Gabarya died of head injury suffered due to the
assault at the spot itself. The injured
Aniketh(CW9) has recovered after treatment at
BIMS Hospital, Belagavi. While assaulting, accused
No.1 has abused the said injured Aniketh in filthy
language by referring to his caste that he belongs
to Holeya caste.
Initially UDR case No.5/2021 came to be
registered at APMC Police Station at the instance
of first informant, who alleged that his son died of
consumption of liquor, but raising suspicion over
his death. When the said first informant became
aware of the aforesaid incident through the friend
of the deceased i.e., injured Aniketh(CW9), he
lodged complaint against accused Nos. 1 and 2 and
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14834
child in conflict with law on 19.04.2021 at APMC
Police Station.
The said complaint came to be registered in
Crime No.38/2021 at APMC Police Station against
accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the child in conflict with
law for the offences punishable under Sections
302, 307, 504 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC. The
Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet against
the appellants for the offences under Sections 302,
307 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST(POA)
Act, 1989 and the case is now pending in the
Special Case No.170/2021 on the file of III Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi.
Accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to be arrested on
20.04.2021. They filed Crl.Misc. No.826/2021
seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by
the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi,
by order dated 01.09.2021. Earlier this appellant-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14834
accused No.2 had challenged the said order in
Crl.A.No.100284/2021 and the same came to be
dismissed by judgment dated 23.11.2021.
Thereafter, the appellant-accused No.2 filed
Cl.Misc.No.1429/2021 seeking bail and the same
came to be rejected by the learned III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, by order
dated 11.01.2022. Thereafter, appellant-accused
No.2 has challenged the said order in
Crl.A.No.100066/2022 and the same came to be
dismissed by the judgment dated 28.08.2022.
Thereafter, the appellant-accused No.2 has filed
Crl.Misc.No.1001/2023 seeking bail and the same
came to be rejected by learned III Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, Belagavi by order dated
05.09.2023, which is challenged in this appeal.
4. It would be the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that, complainant-father
of the deceased and eyewitnesses namely CWs.8
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14834
and 9 have already been examined and they have
not supported the case of the prosecution. He
further submits that earlier bail petition came to
be rejected on the ground that there is a threat to
the eyewitnesses. He contends that as the
eyewitnesses are already examined, there is no
threat to the eyewitnesses. With this, he prayed to
allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned High Court
Government Pleader would contend that merely
because eyewitnesses have not supported the case
of prosecution is not a ground for grant of bail
since, the other prosecution witnesses are yet to
be examined. This Court earlier considering the
prima-facie case, overtact of this appellant-
accused No.2 has rejected his appeal challenging
rejection of the bail order. There are no new
grounds for grant of bail in this successive bail
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14834
petition. With this, he prayed to dismiss the
appeal.
6. Earlier the appeals filed by appellant-
accused No.2 came to be rejected on the ground
that CWs.8 and 9 are the eyewitnesses to the
incident and if he is granted bail, there is a threat
to the eyewitnesses. The said eyewitnesses namely
CWs.8 and 9 have already been examined by the
prosecution and they have not supported the case
of prosecution. As the eyewitnesses have already
examined, there is no threat to the eyewitnesses.
Even complainant-CW.1 has already been
examined by the prosecution and he has also not
supported the case of prosecution. Without
considering all these aspects, learned Sessions
Judge has rejected the bail petition of the
appellant-accused No.2. Therefore, the
interference of this Court is required. The
appellant-accused No.2 has made grounds for
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14834
grant of bail with conditions. Hence, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The order dated 05.09.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.1001/2023 by the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, is
set-aside. Consequently, the petition filed by the
appellant-accused No.2 under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., stands allowed. The appellant-accused
No.2 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime
No.38/2021 of APMC Yard Police Station, Belagavi
subject to the following conditions:
i. The appellant-accused No.2 shall
execute a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for
the likesum to the satisfaction of Trial
Court.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14834
ii. The appellant-accused No.2 shall not
threaten or tamper the remaining
prosecution witnesses.
iii. The petitioners-accused No.2 shall
attend the Court on all the dates of
hearing unless exempted and co-
operate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM
CT:BCK
