Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mahesha vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 1533 Kant

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1533 Kant
Judgement Date : 23 February, 2023

Karnataka High Court
Mahesha vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavarpresided Bysaj
                                               -1-
                                                      CRL.A No. 189 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

                                           BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 189 OF 2023
                   BETWEEN:

                         MAHESHA
                         S/O MONAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
                         R/O KRISHNAPURA
                         MATASAGARA VILLAGE
                         KASABA HOBLI
                         SAKALESHPURA TALUK
                         HASSAN DISTRICT-34.
                                                               ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI PRATHEEP K C, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         REP. BY SAKALESHPURA TOWN POLICE STATION
Digitally signed         HASSAN DISTRICT
by SANDHYA S             REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Location: HIGH           HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF                 BANGALORE - 01.
KARNATAKA
                   2.    PRAVEEN KUMAR
                         S/O SWAMY
                         AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
                         R/O MATASAGARA VILLAGE
                         KASABA HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK
                         HASSAN DISTRICT - 34.
                                                            ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI S VISWA MURTHY, HCGP FOR R1
                    R2 IS SERVED - ABSENT & UNREPRESENTED)
                             -2-
                                     CRL.A No. 189 of 2023




     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S. 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN SPL.CASE No.501/2022
DATED 22.12.2022 PASSED BY 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON
BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.501/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341,
302, 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT BY
RESPONDENT P.S., AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT HASSAN.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by appellant - accused No. 2

seeking to set aside the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in SPl.C.

No. 501/2022 whereunder the bail application of appellant

- accused No. 2 sought in respect of crime No. 97/2022 of

Sakaleshpura Police station for the offence under Sections

341 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections

3(2)(v) of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came

to be rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

learned HCGP appearing for respondent No. 1 - State.

CRL.A No. 189 of 2023

Respondent No. 2 is served with notice but he has not

entered appearance before the Court.

3. Case of the prosecution is with regard to the

homicidal death of father of respondent No.2. The

deceased was working in Coffee Board. On 14.06.2022 the

deceased left home as usual in the morning hours for his

office. In the afternoon he returned to his village on

learning about the death of one Sunil Joseph. After having

dinner, at about 11.00 pm, the deceased left home saying

that he will sleep near the house of Sunil Joseph. At 06.30

am on 15.06.2022 some villagers told respondent No. 2

that his father was found dead. This resulted in FIR being

registered in crime No. 97/2022.

4. Investigation led to arrest of three accused

including the appellant. Charge sheet shows that accused

No. 1 had enmity against the deceased. Once the

deceased had objected to the illegal transportation of sand

CRL.A No. 189 of 2023

by accused No.1. On the night of 14.06.2022 all the three

accused were having liquor sitting in the middle of the

road and when the deceased questioned them, accused

No. 1 with the help of accused Nos.2 and 3 killed the

deceased. It is alleged very specifically that accused No. 1

strangled the deceased with a towel and accused Nos. 2

and 3 held the limbs of the deceased very tightly.

5. As argued by the learned counsel for the

appellant there are no eye witnesses to this incident.

Entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. It appears,

based on the voluntary statement made by accused Nos. 2

and 3 the motive is spelt out in the charge sheet.

According to the prosecution at the instance of accused

Nos. 2 and 3 clothes of the deceased were recovered.

Except this there are no other materials as against

appellant - accused No. 2. Charge sheet indicates that it

was accused No. 1 who had enmity against the deceased.

C.W.17 to C.W.19 are shown to be the witnesses for the

CRL.A No. 189 of 2023

last seen theory but on perusal of the statements it

becomes clear that they just saw all the three accused

sitting in the middle of the road and taking liquor.

Therefore, their statements do not disclose the presence of

the deceased along with them.

6. Accused No. 3 who is similarly placed to that of

accused No. 2 has been granted bail by this Court in Crl.A.

No. 1947/2022 by judgment dated 29.11.2022. The

appellant - accused No.2 is similarly placed to that of

accused No. 3 who has been granted bail by this Court.

Inspite of producing copy of the judgment passed in Crl.A.

No. 1947/2022, trail Court has not granted bail to accused

No.2 who is placed similarly to that of accused No. 3. The

overt acts alleged against this appellant - accused No. 2

and accused No.3 are same. Therefore, appellant -

accused No.2 is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of

parity. Under these circumstances, the trial Court could

have granted bail to the appellant - accused No. 2.

CRL.A No. 189 of 2023

Investigation is completed. There was no impediment for

the trial Court to have admitted the appellant - accused

No.2 to bail. Therefore the impugned order cannot be

sustained. Accordingly, I pass the following;

ORDER

Appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, dated

22.12.2022 in Spl.C. No. 501/2022 is set aside. The

appellant - accused No.2 shall be released on bail in crime

No. 97/2022 of Sakaleshpura Police Station subject to the

following conditions:

i. Appellant - accused No. 2 shall execute a personal

bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

only) with two sureties for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the trial Court.

ii. Appellant - accused No. 2 shall not tamper with the

evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and

threaten the witnesses.

CRL.A No. 189 of 2023

iii. Appellant - accused No. 2 shall regularly appear

before the trial Court till conclusion of the trial.

iv. Appellant - accused No. 2 shall not get involved in

any other criminal case/s in future. In case any FIR is

registered against him, the same will be considered

for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LRS

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter