Karnataka High Court
Anthony vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.A No. 1671 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.1671 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
ANTHONY
S/O YESU
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT NO.6 24TH CROSS
OLD BAGLUR LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 084.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M R, DVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DEVARA JEEVANAHALLI POLICE
POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally signed HIGH COURT BUILDING
by SANDHYA S BANGALORE-560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SHIVAKUMAR
KARNATAKA
S/O JAYARAJ
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT NO.106, 6TH CROSS
SAMADANAGARA, K G HALLI
BANGALORE-560 044.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2022
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA)
FILED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:14.02.2022
PASSED BY LXVII ADDITIONAL CC AND SJ BENGALURU , C/c
LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL
JUDGE BENGALURU IN CRL.MISC.No.826/2022 AND RELEASE
THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.No.177/2021 ITS
SPL.C.C.NO.1697/2021 OF DEVARA JEEVANAHALLI POLICE FOR
AN OFFENCE P/U/S.302,307,109,120-B,201 R/W SEC.149 OF
IPC AND SEC.25(1)(b)(B) OF ARMS ACT AND SEC.3(2)(v)(va)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE HONBLE LXX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE AT BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for admission, with the
consent of both the counsel, it is taken up for final
disposal.
2. This appeal is filed by appellant/accused No.5
seeking setting aside the order dated 14.02.2022 passed
in Crl.Misc.No.826/2022 by LXX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71)
where under the bail petition of appellant/accused No.5
sought in respect of crime No.177/2021 of
Devarajeevanahalli P.S. for the offences punishable under
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2022
Sections 307,302,120(B),109,201 r/w Section 149 of IPC,
Section 25(1B)(B) of Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) (v-a)
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act,1989 came to be rejected.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State.
3. Inspite of service of notice to respondent No.2
remained absent and unrepresented.
4. The case of prosecution is that respondent No.2
has filed complaint stating that his brother Krishnamurthy
@ Kutti was residing with his second wife Smt. Rooth and
two children and his first wife Smt. Selvi was residing in
her mother's house along with her two sons. The
deceased Krishnamurthy @ Kutti had married Smt. Rooth
who lost her husband and their marriage is love marriage
which took place about 10 years ago. It is further stated
that about one month ago, the said Rooth quarreled with
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2022
deceased Krishnamurthy @ Kutti and went along with her
son to her parents house. About two weeks ago, the said
Rooth came to the house of deceased Krishnamurthy @
Kutti when nobody was there in the house and took away
the golden ornaments, cash and documents and also gave
life threat to the deceased Krishnamurthy @ Kutti over
phone.
5. It is further stated that on 02.07.2021 at about
10.30 p.m., when the complainant was near his house,
some boys came and told him that deceased Krishna
Murthy @ Kutti was assaulted in front of Ambedkar
Hospital and he went there along with his uncle's son
Manivelu and there, he saw blood stains on the side of
road divider and somebody told him that the injured was
taken to the hospital and he went to Ambedkar Hospital
and saw his brother who succumbed to the multiple
injuries on his neck, head, chest, hands and came to know
that deceased Krishnamurthy @ Kutti died on the way to
hospital and also came to know that his sister's son
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2022
Nagaraj who was with deceased Krishnamurthy @ Kutti
has also sustained injuries and who is taken to some other
hospital for further treatment. He suspected the
involvement of Smt. Rooth, the second wife in commission
of murder of his brother. The said complaint came to be
registered in crime No.177/2021 at Devarajeevanahalli
P.S. for the offences under Sections 302,307 read with
Section 34 of IPC and Section 25(1B)(B) of Arms Act
against Smt. Rooth and others. Appellant/accused No.5
came to be arrested on 07.07.2021 and he is in judicial
custody.
6. The police after completing the investigation
filed charge sheet against eight accused persons. The
appellant/accused No.5 filed Crl.Misc.826/2022 seeking
bail and the same came to be rejected by impugned order
dated 14.02.2022 which is challenged in this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the deceased was a rowdy sheeter and he
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2022
has many enemies. The injured CW.2 and eyewitness
CW.5 did not identify this appellant/accused No.5 in test
identification parade. The statement of CW.2 came to be
recorded after four days of incident and his further
statement came to be recorded on 25.07.2021. Even
though CW.6 is cited as eyewitness, but he is only a
witness for conspiracy between the deceased and accused
persons. Accused No.3 has been granted bail and
therefore the appellant/accused No.5 is entitled for bail on
the ground of parity. The deceased Krishnamurthy @
Kutti was doing financial business and when he was in
judicial custody due to financial transactions, he was in
enmity with accused No.1 who was in jail.
Appellant/accused No.5 is in judicial custody since 19
months and charge is not yet framed in the Special Case.
With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to
the appellant/accused No.5.
8. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1-
State would contend that the role of appellant/accused
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2022
No.5 is different than the role of accused No.3 who has
been granted bail and therefore he is not entitled for bail
on the ground of parity. There is specific accusation in the
charge sheet against this appellant/accused No.5 and
accused No.6 assaulting deceased Krishnamurthy @ Kutti
with chopper and dagger and also assaulting CW.2 who
came to his rescue. CW.2 is the injured and CW.5 is the
eyewitness to the incident. In their statements, they
specifically stated the overtacts of appellant/accused No.5.
In their further statement, they have identified
appellant/accused No.5 as one of the assailants who has
assaulted deceased Krishnamurthy @ Kutti.
9. The post mortem report reveals that deceased
Krishnamurthy @ Kutti has sustained 27 injuries and
cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result
of multiple injuries sustained. The wound certificate of
CW.2 reveals that he has sustained two injuries, which are
stated to be grievous in nature. On perusal of the charge
sheet material, there is prima-facie case against this
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2022
appellant/accused No.5 and there is recovery of dagger
and knife at the instance of appellant/accused No.5 and
another. The charge sheet material shows prima-facie
case against this appellant/accused No.5 for the offences
alleged against him. Considering all these aspects, the
learned Sessions/Special Judge has rightly passed the
impugned order, which does not call for any interference
by this Court. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
10. Having heard the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for appellant and learned HCGP for
respondent No.1-State, this Court has gone through the
impugned order and charge sheet material.
11. Accused No.2 -Smt. Rooth is the second wife of
deceased Krishnamurthy @ Kutti. She has quarreled with
deceased Krishnamurthy @ Kutti and resided separately
with her son and she had enmity with deceased
Krishnamurthy @ Kutti. Accused No.2-Smt. Rooth came in
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2022
contact with accused No.1 who was in jail and with the
help of accused No.3 and accused Nos.4 to 8 conspired to
kill deceased Krishnamurthy @ Kutti. As per the charge
sheet material, on 02.07.2021 at night between 9.30-
10.30 p.m., when deceased Krishnamurthy @ Kutti and
CW.2 were playing carom in Ruby Carom Club, at that
time, this appellant/accused No.5 and accused No.6 went
inside the said club and assaulted deceased Krishnamurthy
@ Kutti with chopper and dagger and cause injuries and at
that time, CW.2 went to rescue to whom
appellant/accused No.5 and accused No.6 assaulted and
caused injuries. At that time, deceased Krishnamurthy @
Kutti came out to escape from accused and again accused
Nos.4 to 8 assaulted him with chopper, knife, dagger and
cause his death.
12. CW.2 is the injured and as per his wound
certificate, he has sustained two injuries which are opined
to be grievous in nature. CW.2 in his statement recorded
on 06.07.2021 has specifically stated the overtacts of this
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2022
appellant/accused No.5 and other accused. In his further
statement recorded on 25.07.2021, he has identified this
appellant/accused No.5 and others as the persons who
assaulted deceased Krishnamurthy @ Kutti.
13. CW.5 who is an eyewitness to the incident has
also in his statement and further statement stated the
overtacts of this appellant/accused No.5 and others
assaulting deceased Krishnamurthy @ Kutti and CW.2.
14. The post mortem report of deceased
Krishnamurthy @ Kutti reveals that he has sustained 27
injuries and cause of death is opined to be due to shock
and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained.
CW.2 has sustained two injuries which are stated to be
grievous in nature.
15. On perusal of the entire charge sheet material,
there is prima-facie case against this appellant/accused
No.5 for the offences alleged against him. Merely
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2022
because CWs.2 and 5 have not identified this
appellant/accused No.5 in test identification parade is not
a ground to grant him bail. This appellant/accused No.5 is
not entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity as
accused No.3 who is on bail has no allegation of assault on
deceased Krishnamurthy @ Kutti and CW.2. The
Sessions/Special Court considering all these aspects has
passed the impugned order which does not call for any
interference by this Court.
16. The appellant/accused No.5 has not made out
any grounds to set aside the impugned order dated
14.02.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.826/2022 by LXX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH-71). Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSD
