Karnataka High Court
Chandan P C @ Mic Set vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.A No. 143 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 143 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. CHANDAN P.C. @ MIC SET,
S/O CHIKKARANGAIAH,
AGED 25 YEARS,
RA/T PEEDANHALLI VILLAGE,
KADABA HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 219.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.V.PRAVEEN GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY GUBBI POICE STATION,
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY
by SANDHYA S STATE PUBIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SRI. SRIDHAR,
S/O MUDALAGIRIYAPPA,
AGED 39 YEARS,
R/AT PENDANHALLI VILLAGE,
KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 219.
NOW R/AT ADALAGERE VILLAGE,
NITTUR HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK,
-2-
CRL.A No. 143 of 2023
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 223.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2022 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.1208/2022 BEFORE THE III ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR AND ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL
IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN
SPL.C.NO.341/2022 CR.NO.80/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE
HONBLE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
TUMKURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 144, 148, 323, 324,
302, 301, 120B, 504, 114 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v) OF
SC/ST ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by accused No.8 seeking setting
aside the order dated 15.10.2022 passed in Crl.Misc. No.
1208/2022 by the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
Tumakuru, where under the anticipatory bail petition of
the appellant/accused No.8 sought in respect of crime No.
80/2022 of Gubbi Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 323, 324, 302,
201, 120(B), 504, 114 r/w 149 of IPC and under Section
3(2)(V) of the SC ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act 1989
(for short 'Act'), came to be rejected.
CRL.A No. 143 of 2023
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.8
and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Respondent
No.2 in spite of service of notice remained absent and
unrepresented.
3. The case of the prosecution is that it was reported to
the police that one Nandish took Girish.P.M., the brother of
respondent No.2, with him at about 8.30 p.m and he did
not return home. Thereafter, respondent No.2 came to
know that his brother Girish.P.M was found dead near the
pond, with the dead body of another person some distance
away from the dead body of his brother. Respondent No.2
went to the place where the dead body of another person
was found and came to know that his name was also
Girish.K., a resident of Manchaladore village. He noticed
injuries on the dead body of his brother Girish.P.M as well
as injuries on the dead body of another person, Girish.K.
He suspected that one Nandish and others accused have
killed his brother Girish.P.M and another person, who is
also Girish.K. After an investigation, the investigation
CRL.A No. 143 of 2023
officer has filed a chargesheet against 29 accused person.
According to the prosecution, the dead person was
stealing coconut drugs, areca nuts, and other things,
therefore, the villagers decided to catch them red handed
with their stolen things. Pursuant to the same, both were
assaulted, and they died. The dead bodies were found
near the pond. The present appellant, who has arrayed as
accused No.8 in the chargesheet, apprehending his arrest,
filed Crl.Mis.No.1208/2022 seeking anticipatory bail, which
was rejected by the impugned order dated 15.10.2022,
which is challenged in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that
the complainant is the brother of the deceased Girish.P.M.,
and his statement is recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. He neither in his statement nor in his complaint
stated the name of this appellant/accused No.8. It is his
further submission that C.W.2 to 8 who have been cited as
eyewitnesses in the chargesheet, and their statements,
were recorded on 22.04.2022 and further statements were
CRL.A No. 143 of 2023
recorded on 11.07.2022. It is his further submission that
appellant/accused No.8 is said to have assaulted the
deceased with "Adake Babbe" and it has not been
recovered. It is his further submission that accused Nos.18
to 22 and 25 are granted bail. Therefore, on the ground of
parity appellant/accused No.8 is also entitled for grant of
bail. As the chargesheet is filed, appellant/accused No.8 is
not required for custodial interrogation. Without
considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge
has passed the impugned order, which calls for
interference at the hands of this Court, and prayed to
allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP would contend that this
case involves double murder. C.Ws.2 to 8 are
eyewitnesses who have specifically stated the overt acts of
this appellant/accused No.8. One of the deceased
sustained 21 injuries, and another deceased sustained 13
injuries, and the doctor who conducted the postmortem
opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage.
CRL.A No. 143 of 2023
The chargesheet shows a prima-facie case against
appellant/accused No.8. He further contended that as
there is a bar under Section 18 of the 'Act', and by
considering the same, the learned Sessions Judge has
rightly rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by the
appellant/accused No.8. With this, he prayed for dismissal
of the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the
impugned order and the chargesheet records.
7. The case involves a double murder, i.e., one by
Girish.P.M and one by Girish.K. The case of the
prosecution is that the said two persons are thieves and
accused persons caught them red-handed, assaulted
them, and killed them. The avert act alleged against this
appellant/accused No.8 is that he is said to have assaulted
the deceased with "Adike Babbe". The doctor who
conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body
of the deceased person has noted 21 injuries over
CRL.A No. 143 of 2023
Girish.P.M and 13 injuries over Girish.K and opined that
death is due to shock and hemorrhage as the result of
injuries sustained. C.Ws.2 to 8 are eyewitnesses who
specifically pleaded the avert act of appellant/accused
No.8 assaulting the deceased. The deceased belonged to
the schedule caste. On perusal of the chargesheet, there is
a prima facie case against this appellant/accused No.8 for
the offences alleged against him. There is a bar under
Section 18 of the Act to entertain a petition under Section
438 of the Cr.P.C. Considering all these facts, the learned
Sessions/Special Judge has rightly passed the impugned
order, rejecting the anticipatory bail petition of
appellant/accused No.8. The appellant/accused No.8 has
not made out any grounds for setting aside the impugned
order and grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
hdk
