Sri Dhareppa S/O Sharanappa Adavi vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 223 Kant

                            1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

          CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200066/2022
BETWEEN:

DHAREPPA S/O SHARANAPPA ADAVI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HADGINAL VILLAGE,
TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYPUR
                                           ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       THROUGH KALAKERI PS
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE,
       HIGH COURT BUILDING,
       KALABURAGI-585 103

2.     SRI MANJUNATH
       S/O MARUTI NAIKODI
       AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
       R/O GUBBEWAD, TQ. SINDAGI,
       DIST. VIJAYAPUR
                                         ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1;
 SRI R.S.LAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                             2




      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A
OF   THE   SCHEDULED   CASTES   AND   SCHEDULED    TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2021 PASSED BY II-ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR AND CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE
HIM ON BAIL IN KALAKERI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.16/2021
REGISTERED    FOR   THE   OFFENCES    PUNISHABLE   UNDER
SECTIONS 302, 109, R/W SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE AND SECTIONS 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(V) OF THE SC/ST (POA)
ACT ON THE FILE OF II-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYPUR.


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

                       JUDGMENT

Heard Sri S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for the

appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1 and Sri R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for

respondent No.2-defacto complainant.

2. The present appeal is filed under Section 14-

A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (for short, hereinafter

referred to as 'SC/ST (POA) Act') with the following

prayer:

"Wherefore, the appellant most humbly prays that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 01/10/2021 passed by the Hon'ble II Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur and consequently enlarge him on bail in Kalakeri PS Crime No.16/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 302, 109 R/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3[1][r][s], 3[2][v] of the SC/ST [POA] Act on the file of II Addl. Sessions Judge, Vijaypur, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to impose upon them in the interest of justice and equity."

3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal

of the present appeal are as under:

Upon the complaint filed by Sri Manjunath

S/o Maruthi Naikodi, Kalakeri Police registered a case in

Crime No.16/2021 for the offences punishable under

Sections 302, 109 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections

3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. In the

complaint, it is contended that wife of the complainant,

Sunita, belong to Hadginal village and she has been

elected as panchayat member and the said constituency

was reserved for 'ST (Woman)'. In the election, since

Sunita was elected, there was rift between the

complainant party and accused party. In pursuance of

the said rift, on 28.02.2021 at about 10.00 a.m., the

elder brother of the complainant, Mallikarjun had visited

Hadginal village and the complainant had gone to

Puradal village. Around 5.00 p.m., when the

complainant was in Puradal village, he received an

information that his elder brother Mallikarjun has been

done to death by Dhareppa and others. Immediately,

he visited Hadginal village and he found the dead body

of his elder brother near Basavanna temple.

4. Based on the complaint, after registering the

case, the police conducted detailed investigation and

filed chargesheet against the appellant and others.

5. The attempt made by the appellant to seek

grant of bail is turned down by the learned Special

Judge. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is

before this Court with a request for grant of bail.

6. Sri S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for the

appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal

vehemently contended that a false case has been foisted

against the appellant and he is innocent of the offences

alleged against him. Since the chargesheet is filed,

detention of the appellant in custody is no longer

warranted and the material on record does not warrant

custodial trial.

7. He also contended that continuation of the

appellant in judicial custody would amount to pre-trial

conviction and sought for allowing the appeal and grant

of bail.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader and learned counsel for respondent No.2-defacto

complainant opposes the appeal grounds. They

vehemently contended that there are six eyewitnesses

and all of them have categorically stated the overt-acts

attributable to the appellant before the Investigating

Agency while their statements have been recorded

under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and prima facie materials

would go to show that homicidal death of Mallikarjun is

only on account of assault made by the present

appellant and other accused persons and therefore, the

appeal is to be rejected.

9. In view of the rival contentions of the

parties, this Court perused the material on record

meticulously.

10. Admittedly, the material on record would

disclose that there was enmity nurtured by the accused

party on account of the gram panchayat election.

Admittedly, wife of the complainant was successful in

the gram panchayat election and in that regard, there

was a dispute. The complainant visited Puradal village

on 28.02.2021 in the morning hours and when he was in

Puradal village, around 5.00 p.m., he received

information that his elder brother Mallikarjun has been

done to death by the appellant and other accused

persons. He immediately visited Hadginal village and

found the dead body of his brother near Basavanna

temple.

11. The police after registering the case have

conducted detailed investigation. Investigation is

conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In

such investigation, he has recorded statements of six

eyewitnesses. All of them have categorically stated the

overt-acts attributable to the appellant herein.

12. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the

case, especially, the postmortem report where eight

external injuries are found on the dead body of the

deceased and recovery of the materials and the

voluntary statement said to have been given by the

appellant-accused, this Court is of the considered

opinion that atleast at this stage, the appellant has not

made out a case whatsoever muchless good grounds to

entertain the bail request of the appellant.

13. The argument of the learned counsel for the

appellant that continuation of the accused in the judicial

custody would amount to pre-trial conviction cannot be

countenanced in law, atleast at this stage.

14. In view of the fact that the material on

record, prima facie point out the guilt towards the

appellant-accused and there is a direct nexus

established by the material on record to the homicidal

death of Mallikarjun and that of the appellant, suffice to

say that the material available on record at this stage

would disentitle the accused from obtaining discretionary

order of grant of bail by resorting the special power

vested in this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.,

coupled with Section 14-A of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

15. Further, it is always open for the appellant to

approach this Court with a successive bail application if

there is a positive changed circumstance in the case.

16. Reserving such liberty, the following order is

passed:

ORDER

The appeal is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NB*