Karnataka High Court
A.S. Suresh @ Suri vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.A No. 91 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 2088 of 2022
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. 91 OF 2023
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2088 OF 2022
IN CRL A No.91/2023:
BETWEEN:
A.S. SURESH @ SURI
S/O SUBBARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT KADAMALAKUNTE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 202.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KARTHIK YADAV U, FOR
SRI S K VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SANDHYA S AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA BY PAVAGADA POLICE
PAVAGADA, TUMAKURU DIST-572 202.
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SUBBARAYAPPA
S/O LATE KADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT T N PETE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK
-2-
CRL.A No. 91 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 2088 of 2022
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-561 202.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2022
PASSED IN CR.No.192/2022 BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL AND RELEASE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 ON
BAIL IN CR.No.192/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 AND
201 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA)
AMENDMENT ACT ON THE FILE OF 1ST RESPONDENT
PAVAGADA POLICE, TUMAKURU WHICH IS NOW REGISTERED
AS SPL.C.NO.811/2022 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU.
IN CRL A No.2088/2022
BETWEEN:
1. ANIL KUMAR
S/O CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
2. SATHISH
S/O CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
3. KENGURI
S/O NAGANNA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED No.1 TO 4
ARE R/AT ROPPA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU DIST - 572 202.
5. MADHU
S/O SRIRAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
-3-
CRL.A No. 91 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 2088 of 2022
R/AT KADAMALAKUNTE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU DIST - 572 202.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KARTHIK YADAV U, FOR
SRI S K VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PAVAGADA POLICE
PAVAGADA, TUMAKURU DIST - 572 202
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SUBBARAYAPPA
S/O LATE KADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT T. N PETE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU DIST. - 561 202.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2022
PASSED IN CR.No.192/2022 BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKURU BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL
AND RELEASE THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 AND 6
ON BIAL IN CR.No.192/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302,
201 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(va) OF SC/ST
(POA)(AMENDMENT) ACT OF THE FILE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT POLICE i.e PAVAGADA POLICE, TUMKURU
DISTRICT WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SPL.
COURT/III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKURU.
-4-
CRL.A No. 91 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 2088 of 2022
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Crl.A. No. 91/2023 is filed by accused No. 5 and
Crl.A. No. 2088/2022 is filed by accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 6.
The bail application of accused No. 5 sought in crime No.
192/2022 of Pavagada Police station came to be rejected
by order dated 03.11.2022. The bail application of accused
Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 sought in crime No. 192/2022 of
Pavagada Police station came to be rejected by order
dated 03.11.2022. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 had sought for
grant of bail in crime No. 192/2022 of Pavagada Police
station for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and
201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for shore hereinafter referred to as
`the Act'). Accused Nos. 1 to 6 have challenged both the
orders dated 03.11.2022 in these appeals.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants -
accused and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent
CRL.A No. 91 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 2088 of 2022
No.1 State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2
remained absent and unrepresented.
3. Case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 - Anil
Kumar lodged a missing complaint in respect of missing of
his sister Ashwini. Subsequently, Ashwini as well as
deceased Nagendra were traced out by the Police and
accused No.1 - Anil Kumar took his sister with him.
Thereafter deceased - Nagendra was residing with his
father. On 25.12.2019 at about 01.30 pm deceased -
Nagendra went for purchase of clothes for his newly born
daughter to celebrate her first birthday. He did not return
home till 04.01.2020. Wife of deceased - Nagendra lodged
a missing complaint before the Thirumani Police station.
Even thereafter deceased - Nagendra was not traced out
by the concerned Thirumani Police. After lapse of two
years, in an enquiry in another murder case it came to the
knowledge of the Investigating Officer that accused Nos. 1
to 5 had kidnapped the deceased - Nagendra on
25.12.2019 due to love affair between sister of accused
CRL.A No. 91 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 2088 of 2022
No. 1 as well as deceased - Nagendra and committed his
murder. The brother of the deceased - Nagendra came to
know about the murder of his brother in the year 2019
itself. The father of deceased - Nagendra filed complaint
and case came to be registered in crime No. 192/2022 of
Pavagada Police station and these accused came to be
arrested during investigation. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 6
filed bail application and accused No. 5 also filed bail
application and both the applications came to be rejected
by two different orders dated 03.11.2022 by III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru. The said orders
are challenged in these two appeals.
4. Leaned counsel for the appellants would contend
that the alleged incident occurred on 25.12.2019 and
complaint came to be filed on 22.09.2022 and there is a
delay of two years 10 months in filing the complaint. There
are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case of the
prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. As per
CRL.A No. 91 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 2088 of 2022
the averments of the complaint the complainant is
knowing about the incident but he has not chosen to file
the complaint earlier. There is no recovery at the instance
of the appellants. The appellants came to be arrested on
25.09.2022. At the instance of accused Nos.1 to 4 and in
the place shown by them they had exhumination and the
Investigating Officer found skull, bone, half burnt clothes
and melted wire and they were sent for FSL and report is
not yet received. He contends that whether the said skull
and bones are of the deceased is yet to be ascertained by
the prosecution. He contends that there are political rivalry
between the accused persons and the family of the
complainant and therefore, the present complaint has
been filed against the appellants. As charge sheet is filed
appellants are not required for custodial interrogation.
With this he prayed to allow the appeals and grant bail to
the appellants.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for
respondent No. 1 - State would contend that in the place
CRL.A No. 91 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 2088 of 2022
shown by accused Nos. 1 to 4 there is recovery of skull,
bones, burnt clothes, melted wire and this itself shows the
involvement of accused in the commission of murder of
the deceased - Nagendra. The said articles were sent to
FSL and report is yet to be received. Considering all these
aspects the Sessions Court has rightly rejected the bail
applications of the appellants. With this she prayed to
dismiss the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants and the learned HCGP for the respondent No. 1
- State this Court has gone through the impugned orders
and charge sheet reports.
7. At the time of passing of the impugned order
charge sheet was not filed and one of the ground for
rejecting bail applications of the appellants was that
investigation was in progress and if the appellants were
granted bail there were chances of they hampering the
investigation. Now the charge sheet is filed. There are no
eye witnesses to the incident and the case of the
CRL.A No. 91 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 2088 of 2022
prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Except
recovery of skull, bones and other articles at the place
shown by the appellants - accused there is no other
connecting material against the appellants. Whether the
said skull and bones recovered in the place shown by the
appellants are of the deceased or not can only be
ascertained after receipt of FSL report. As charge sheet is
filed, the appellants are not required for custodial
interrogation. Hence, the appellants have made out a case
for setting aside the impugned order and granting bail to
them. Hence, the following;
ORDER
Appeals are allowed. The impugned orders dated
03.11.2022 passed in crime No. 192/2022 by the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, are set
aside. Consequently, the bail applications filed by the
appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 6 are allowed and they are
ordered to be released on bail in crime No. 192/2022 of
Pavagada Police station subject to the following conditions:
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 91 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 2088 of 2022
i. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 6 shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh (Rupees One
Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 6 shall not hamper
the prosecution witnesses.
iii. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 6 shall attend the
Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted by the
Court and cooperate in the speedy disposal of the
case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LRS
