Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.A No. 2280 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2280 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
VENKATESH
S/O. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT NO.3567, 7TH CROSS
7TH MAIN, GAYATHRINAGAR
BENGALURU - 21.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
SANDHYA S
Location: HIGH
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF REP. BY RAJAGOPALNAGAR POLICE STATION
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE -01.
2. SMT. SITAMMA
W/O NARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO.193/1, 5TH CROSS
KASTURI LAYOTU
RAJAGOPALNAGAR
BENGALURU-79.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. VISHWAMURTHY - HCGP FOR R-1;
R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
CRL.A No. 2280 of 2022
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.14A(2) SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989
BY THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN SPL.CASE
NO.646/2021 DATED 16.12.2022 PASSED BY THE LCC-ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT
BENGALURU AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.6/2021 (SPL. CASE.646/2021) FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 504,
120-B, 301 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC & ST
(POA) ACT AND SECTIONS 25(1)(b) R/W 4 OF INDIAN ARMS
ACT, BY RAJAGOPALANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU
AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXX-ADDL. CITY CIVIL
JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BANGALORE.
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 HCGP 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 16.12.2022 passed by the LXX Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge ( CCH-71)
Bengaluru in Spl.c.No.646/2021 rejecting the bail
application filed by accused No.17.
CRL.A No. 2280 of 2022
3. Appellant is accused No.17. 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) 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
weapons such as, long, dragon, matchet, etc., and
CRL.A No. 2280 of 2022
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. 2280 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.17 is
concerned, it appears that he was implicated
based on 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
CRL.A No. 2280 of 2022
No.17 as one of the person who assaulted the deceased
with deadly weapons and charge sheet materials show
prima-facie case against this appellant / accused No.17 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 No.12 who is similarly placed to that
of this appellant / accused No.17 has been granted bail by
CRL.A No. 2280 of 2022
this Court in Crl.A.No.1864/2022. It is alleged that this
appellant is a rowdy sheeter, so also, the said accused
No.12. The involvement of this appellant / accused No.17
in commission of alleged offences is to be ascertained only
at the trial as the charge sheet is filed. Appellant /
accused No.17 is not required for custodial interrogation.
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned 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 16.12.2022 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:
CRL.A No. 2280 of 2022
(i) Appellant / accused No.17 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.
(ii) Appellant / accused No.17 shall not tamper
with the evidence and threaten the witnesses.
(iii) Appellant / accused No.17 shall regularly
appear before the trial court till conclusion of the
trial.
(iv) Appellant / accused No.17 shall mark his
attendance in the jurisdictional police station
once in week preferably on Sunday between 9
am and 12 noon till conclusion of trial.
(v) Appellant / accused No.17 shall not get
involved in any other criminal case/s in future. If
the appellant gets involved in any criminal case
CRL.A No. 2280 of 2022
in future, the court below may cancel the bail
soon after the same is brought to its notice.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DKB
