Karnataka High Court
Vishal vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.A No. 2179 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2179 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
VISHAL
S/O. JAYARAM
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 52, 9TH CROSS,
10TH MAIN ,
BALAJINAGAR
TIGALARAPALYA MAIN ROAD,
PEENYA 2ND PHASE,
BENGALURU - 86.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
by SANDHYA S REP BY RAJGOPAL NAGAR
Location: HIGH POLICE STATION,
COURT OF BENGALURU
KARNATAKA REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 01.
2. SMT. SITAMMA
W/O NARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 193 /1,
5TH CROSS,
KASTURI LAYOUT,
RAJAGOPALNAGAR,
-2-
CRL.A No. 2179 of 2022
BENGALURU - 79.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.VISWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1, ADVOCATE, (PH);
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED- ABSENT)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER IN
SPL.C.NO.646/2021 DATED 25.05.2022 PASSED BY THE LXX
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE AT
BANGALORE AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.6/2021 (SPL.C.NO.646/2021) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 504, 120B, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC AND
SEC.3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND SEC.25(1)(B) R/W 4 OF
INDIAN ARMS ACT BY RAJAGOPAL NAGAR P.S., BANGALORE
AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-71)
AT BANGALORE AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Pratheep.K.C., learned counsel for the
appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1 - State. Respondent No.2 inspite of
service of notice, has not appeared either in person or
through counsel.
2. This appeal is filed questioning the correctness of
the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the learned LXX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge
CRL.A No. 2179 of 2022
(CCH-71) Bengaluru in Spl.Case No.646/2021 rejecting the
bail application filed by accused No.8.
3. Appellant is accused No.8. He and other accused
are facing trial in connection with offence punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 504, 120-B read with
149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act and
Section 25(1)(B)(b) read with 4 of Indian Arms Act. The
FIR was registered on 09.01.2021, at the instance of
second respondent, who is the sister of the deceased
namely, Srinivas. The FIR discloses enemity between the
deceased and one Bharath, who is not alive. The actual
incident took place on 09.01.2021, when the deceased and
the second respondent were present in the site where
a house was being constructed. It appears that
the deceased was getting the house constructed for his
sister i.e., second respondent. When the deceased was
sitting in the site, at about 1.00 p.m., 7 to 8 persons came
there stating that the deceased was responsible for the
death of Bharath, assaulted him indiscriminately with
CRL.A No. 2179 of 2022
weapons such as, long, dragon, machete, etc., and
then left that place. The deceased succumbed to
the injuries.
4. As argued by learned counsel Sri Pratheep K.C., the
second respondent was the eye witness to the
incident. In her report to the police, she stated
that 7 to 8 persons came to the place where
construction work was going on. At that stage,
the deceased was able to identify their names as
Manoji, Appi, Shashi, Manju-Andrahalli, Abhi-Hitachi. That
means the deceased himself was able to identify these
persons and according to the second respondent they were
the persons who inflicted injuries to her brother. One
Sudeep, son of the second respondent was an eye witness.
His statement was recorded on 13.01.2021. In his
statement, he stated that 12 to 15 persons came
to that place and they inflicted injuries to his
uncle. His statement also discloses the names of Manoji,
CRL.A No. 2179 of 2022
Appi, Manja, Andrahalli Abhi, Hitachi among 12 to 15
persons who came there.
5. Then the investigating officer appears to
have collected CCTV footages and in this regard,
he recorded statement of one Raghu-CW25.
According to the visuals found in the CCTV
footages, 8 persons were found going towards the
place of incident by riding 3 motorbikes. Seeing
the footages, the investigating officer was able to
recognize one person as Manoji i.e., accused No.2.
Now, so far as the appellant/accused No.8 is
concerned, it appears that he was implicated
on the basis of the confession statements given by co-
accused.
6. The arguments of the learned High Court
Government Pleader is that CWs.1, 12 to 14, 19 to 24 and
injured CW.13 have identified this appellant/accused No.8
as one of the person who assaulted the deceased with
deadly weapons and charge sheet materials show prima-
CRL.A No. 2179 of 2022
facie case against this appellant / accused No.8 for the
offences alleged against him.
7. If the materials are assessed, it appears
that one Shashi, whose name the deceased himself
took just before the incident took place, was left-
out from the charge sheet. When the second
respondent was able to see 7 to 8 persons coming
to that place with weapons for killing her brother,
the statement of her son Sudeep shows that 12 to
15 persons came to that place. The name of the appellant is
not forthcoming either in the first
information report or in the statement of Sudeep - CW.12.
Even though the said Sudeep - CW.12 was available, his
statement came to be recorded after four days i.e., on
13.01.2021. Accused Nos.9, 12 and 17 who were similarly
placed to that of this appellant / accused No.8 have been
granted bail by this Court in Crl.A.No.68/2023,
Crl.A.No.1864/2022 and Crl.A.2280/2022. It is alleged that
this appellant is a rowdy sheeter, so also, the said accused
CRL.A No. 2179 of 2022
Nos.9, 12 and 17. The involvement of this appellant /
accused No.8 in commission of alleged offences is to be
ascertained only at the trial as the charge sheet is filed.
Appellant / accused No.8 is not required for custodial
interrogation. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned
order requires to be set-aside and appellant is entitled for
grant of bail by imposing stringent conditions. Hence the
following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed. The order passed by the LXX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH-71) dated 25.05.2022 in Spl. Case
No.646/2021 on the application of the appellant is set
aside. The said application is allowed.
The appellant is admitted to bail subject to the
following conditions:
(i) Appellant / accused No.8 shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two
lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the trial Court.
CRL.A No. 2179 of 2022
(ii) Appellant / accused No.8 shall not tamper with
the evidence and threaten the witnesses.
(iii) Appellant / accused No.8 shall regularly
appear before the trial court till conclusion of the
trial.
(iv) Appellant / accused No.8 shall mark his
attendance in the jurisdictional police station once
in a week, preferably on Sunday between 9 am
and 12 noon till conclusion of trial.
(v) Appellant / accused No.8 shall not get involved
in any other criminal case/s in future. If the
appellant gets involved in any criminal case in
future, the court below may cancel the bail soon
after the same is brought to its notice.
Sd/-
JUDGE
tsn*
