Karnataka High Court
Chandraiah P R vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.A No. 144 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAIAH P R
S/O RANGAPPA @ RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT PEEDANAHALLI VILLAGE
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 219.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H V PRAVEEN GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GUBBI POICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BANGALORE - 560 001.
Digitally signed
by SANDHYA S 2. SRI SRIDHAR P.M
S/O MUDALAGIRIYAPPA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
KARNATAKA RESIDING A/T PENDANHALLI VILLAGE
KADABA HOBI GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 219.
NOW RESIDING AT
ADALAGERE VILLAGE
NITTUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 223.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S VISWA MUTHRY, HCGP FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
CRL.A No. 144 of 2023
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2022 PASSED IN
CRL.MISC.NO.1342/2022 PASSED BY THE III ADDL.DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR AND TO ENLARGE HIM ON
BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.341/2022 CR.NO.80/2022 BEFORE THE III
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMKURU AND
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
Accused No. 4 has filed this appeal seeking to set
aside the order dated 15.10.2022 passed in Crl.Misc. No.
1342/2022 by the III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Tumakuru, whereunder the bail petition of
appellant - accused No. 4 sought in respect of crime No.
80/2022 of Gubbi Police Station for the offence under
Sections 143, 144, 148, 323, 324, 302, 201, 120-B, 504,
114 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of
SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short
hereinafter referred to as `the Act') came to be rejected.
CRL.A No. 144 of 2023
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State. Inspite of
service of notice respondent No.2 remained absent and
unrepresented.
3. It was reported to the Police that one Nandish and
others took Girish P.M., brother of respondent No.2 with
them 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 and saw
the dead body of another person at some distance away
from the dead body of his brother. Respondent No.2 went
to that place where the dead body of another person was
found and came to know that his name is also Girish.K,
resident of Manchaladore village. He noticed injuries on
the dead body of his brother Girish P.M. and also noticed
injuries on the dead body of another person by name
Girish.K. He suspected that Nandish and other accused
have killed his brother Girish P.M and another person who
CRL.A No. 144 of 2023
is Girish K. After investigation, the Investigating Officer
has filed charge sheet against 29 accused persons.
According to the prosecution, both the deceased were
thieves stealing coconut, dried arecanuts and other
things. Therefore, the villagers decided to catch them red
hand with their stolen things. Pursuant to the same, both
were assaulted and they died. The dead bodies were
found. Appellant - accused No. 4 came to be arrested on
27.04.2022 and he is in judicial custody. He filed Crl.Misc.
No. 1342/2022 along with accused No. 14 seeking bail and
the same came to be rejected by the impugned order
dated 15.10.2022 which is challenged in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for appellant - accused No.4
would contend that the complainant is the brother of the
deceased Girish B.N. and neither in his complaint nor in
his statement he has stated the name of this appellant -
accused. It is his further submission that C.W.2 to C.W.8
are cited as eye witnesses in the charge sheet and their
statements were recorded on 18.05.2022 and further
CRL.A No. 144 of 2023
statement on 11.07.2022. It is his further submission that
those eye witnesses in their earlier statement have stated
that this appellant - accused No. 4 has assaulted the
deceased with hands and legs and in their further
statement they have stated that appellant - accused No.4
has assaulted the deceased with `tengina dindu' and there
is a contradiction in that regard. He contends that there is
no recovery of any weapon at the instance of appellant -
accused No. 4 except the jeans pant of the deceased -
Girish B.M. He contends that there was no intention on the
part of the appellant - accused No. 4 and other accused to
commit the murder of the deceased. Without considering
all these aspects learned Sessions/Special Judge has
passed the impugned order which requires interference by
this Court. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and
grant bail to appellant - accused No. 4.
5. Per contra learned HCGP appearing for respondent
No. 1 - State would contend that the case involves double
CRL.A No. 144 of 2023
murder. C.W.2 to C.W.8 are eye witnesses who have
specifically stated the overt acts of appellant - accused
No. 4. One of the deceased sustained 21 injuries and
another sustained 13 injuries and the Doctor who
conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of
the deceased has opined that death is due to shock and
hemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained. Charge
sheet shows prima facie case against the appellant -
accused No. 4 for the offence alleged against him. If the
appellant - accused No.4 is granted bail there are chances
of he threatening the prosecution witnesses. Considering
all these aspects learned Sessions/Special Judge has
rightly rejected the bail petition of appellant - accused No.
4. With this he prayed dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 - State this Court
has gone through the impugned order and charge sheet
records.
CRL.A No. 144 of 2023
7. The case involves double murder i.e., murder of
one Girish B.M. and Girish K. Case of the prosecution is
that the said persons were thieves and accused persons
caught them red handed and assaulted and killed them.
The overt acts alleged against this appellant - accused
No.4 is that he assaulted the deceased with tengina dindu.
The Doctor who conducted postmortem examination on
the dead body of the deceased has noted 21 injures on the
body of Girish B.M. and 13 injuries on the body of Girish
K. and has opined that death is due to shock and
hemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained. C.W.2 to
C.W.8 who are eye witnesses to the incident have
specifically stated the overt acts of this appellant -
accused No. 4 assaulting the deceased. Merely because
there is contradiction with regard to the overt acts of this
appellant - accused No. 4 assaulting with hand and legs
and assaulting with tengina dindu in their statement and
further statement is not a ground for grant of bail as there
is prima facie case against appellant - accused No. 4. If
CRL.A No. 144 of 2023
appellant - accused No. 4 is granted bail there are every
chances of he tampering the prosecution witnesses.
Accused Nos. 3 and 9 challenged the rejection of their bail
petition before this Court in Crl.A. No. 53/2023 and the
same came to be rejected by this Court in the judgment
dated 01.02.2023. This appellant - accused No. 4 is
similarly placed to that of accused Nos. 3 and 9. The
appellant - accused No.4 has not made out any grounds
for setting aside the impugned order and granting bail.
Hence, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LRS
