Karnataka High Court
Vinod Raj @ Vinod vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 January, 2023
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
CRL.A No. 1741 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1741 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
VINOD RAJ @ VINOD
S/O MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT GOORANAHALLI MANTI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN
HASSAN DISTRICT-16.
.....APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH REP BY DY.S.P.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CHANNARAYAPATNA SUB DIVISION
HASSAN DISTRICT
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-01.
2. DEEPU C V
S/O VENKATARAMU
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
ARALIKATTE, AGRAHARA BEEDI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-34.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED- UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
CRL.A No. 1741 of 2022
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER IN
SPL.C.NO.33/2020 DATED 15.09.2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN AND SPECIAL
JUDGE AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN
SPL.C.NO.33/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 120B, 114,
34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(v-a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT BY
RESPONDENT CHANNAPATNA TOWN POLICE STATION, HASSAN
DISTRICT AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT HASSAN IN
SPL.C.NO.33/2020.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
This is a successive application filed in the form of an
appeal to set aside the order passed by the Special Court
in Special Case No.33/2020 dated 15.09.2022, wherein an
application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed at the hands
of the appellant, who is accused No.2 praying to enlarge
him on regular bail in Cr.No.214/2020 was earlier
rejected. The crime was registered against the appellant
and other accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 120B, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC and
CRL.A No. 1741 of 2022
Section 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Similar criminal petition was filed at the hands of
the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1696/2021 before this
Court. This Court by order dated 14.03.2022 noticed that
earlier the appellant approached this Court in Crl. Petition
No.3361/2020 by filing a Criminal Petition under Section
439 of Cr.P.C., praying for enlargement on bail. This
Court noticed the fact that although the complainant
changed his version and maintained the allegations as
against accused No.1 and 2, the charge of assaulting the
deceased was retracted as against accused No.3 and 4.
This Court had granted liberty to the appellant to approach
the court after examination of C.W.1/complainant.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that
C.W.1/complainant has been examined and cross-
examined between 23.05.2022 to 29.07.2022. Learned
Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a portion
CRL.A No. 1741 of 2022
of the cross-examination of C.W.1, wherein, he has stated
that his back was towards the occurrence of the incident
since he was sitting on the motorcycle and as soon as, he
was heard commotion he ran away from the place of
incident. He has stated that he came to the spot after
twenty minutes and he found that the deceased person
was lying on the road. Learned Counsel submits that the
witness has clearly stated that he has not able to identify
the four persons, who are said to be the accused persons
and who were present before this Court. Learned Counsel
would further submit that in terms of the directions issued
by this Court earlier, now that the examination of
C.W.1/complainant has been completed and the evidence
of all other witnesses except the official witnesses have
been completed, this is a fit case for grant of bail.
4. Learned Counsel would place reliance on a
decision of a co-ordinate Bench in the case of
Hussainabba @ Hussain Vs. State of Karnataka, by
CRL.A No. 1741 of 2022
Ullal Police Station, Mangalore City, in
Crl.P.No.5896/2020 dated 09.04.2021 and also a decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India Vs. K.A.Najeeb, reported in AIR 2021 SC 712.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader would submit that during the course of cross-
examination of C.W.1/complainant, he has once again
reiterated the fact that he saw accused No.2 i.e., the
appellant herein stabbing the deceased person. Learned
High Court Government Pleader would also submit that
although the examination of C.W.1/complainant has been
completed, nevertheless, in the list of witnesses, there are
thirty persons named and more than eight to ten
witnesses are yet to be examined. Therefore, learned
High Court Government Pleader would submit that having
regard to the fact that few more witnesses are yet to be
examined, he would pray that the appeal may be rejected
on the ground that if the bail is granted at this juncture,
CRL.A No. 1741 of 2022
there is a possibility of the appellant threatening other
witnesses or interfering with the process of justice.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the
appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader and on
perusing the appeal memorandum, this Court finds that
there is sufficient force in the submission of the learned
Counsel for the appellant. In the decision cited by the
learned Counsel for the appellant in the case of Union of
India Vs. K.A.Najeeb (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that under trials cannot indefinitely be detained
pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse
consequences of his acts unless the same is established
before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the
practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial
and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential
criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked
with deciding whether an individual ought to be released
pending trial or not. It was therefore held that once it is
CRL.A No. 1741 of 2022
obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the
accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period
of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge
them on bail.
7. In other case that was cited by the learned
Counsel for the appellant which also involves similar
offence under Section 302 of IPC, as in the present case.
Similar contentions were raised at the hands of the
learned High Court Government Pleader that although the
examination of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 was completed, there
were about 20 witnesses to be examined and therefore,
the objections were raised to the bail application. The co-
ordinate Bench has also held that the apprehension of
tampering with the witnesses has paled into significance in
the light of the completion of evidence of the primary
witnesses of the prosecution. It was also noticed that the
petitioner has been in custody since February, 2017.
CRL.A No. 1741 of 2022
Noticing all these facts the co-ordinate Bench granted bail
to the appellant therein.
8. Having regard to all these facts which are relevant
for consideration of a bail petition, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the bail petition filed by the
appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is required to be
allowed and the appellant is required to be enlarged on
bail. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned order
dated 15.09.2022 passed by the I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Hassan in Special Case No.33/2020 is
hereby quashed and set aside, while allowing the bail
petition filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
The appellant/accuse No.2 is enlarged on bail in
Crime No.214/2020 of Channarayapatna Police Station,
which is pending on the file of I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Hassan in Special Case No.33/2020 for
CRL.A No. 1741 of 2022
the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 114
read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, subject to the following conditions;
(i) The appellant/accused No.2 shall execute a
personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one
Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The appellant shall fully co-oparate for the
expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The appellant shall not tamper with
evidence, influence in any way any
witnesses.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the
appellant to inform the same to the
concerned SHO.
(v) Any violation of the aforementioned
conditions by the appellant, shall result in
cancellation of bail.
Any observation made hereinabove shall not be
taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DL
