Sindhudhara vs State By
2023 Latest Caselaw 865 Kant

                       1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                           BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2048 OF 2022

                            C/W

       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1974 OF 2022

In Crl.A.No.2048/2022

BETWEEN:

Sindhudhara,
S/o. T.Ramanjani,
Aged about 21 years,
R/o at D.No.33, Near
Ayyappa Swamy Temple,
Cholanayakanahalli,
R.T.Nagar Post,
Bengaluru-560032.                        ...Appellant

(By Sri C.Gopalakrishnamurthy, Advocate)

AND:

1. State by Pattanayakanahalli Police,
Represented by its
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Complex,
Bengaluru-560001.

2. Rangamani,
W/o Late Rangaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
R/o Hemdore Village,
                      2


Sira Taluk,
Tumakuru District-577502.             ...Respondents

(By Sri H.S.Shankar, HCGP for R1;
R2 - served, unrepresented)

      This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 praying to set
aside the order passed by the III Additional District
and       Sessions        Judge,     Tumkuru          in
Crl.Misc.No.1594/2022 dated 09.11.2022 by allowing
the appeal filed by the appellant for the offence p/u/s
143, 144, 147, 302, 365, 367,109, 114 read with 149
of IPC and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act and etc.


In Crl.A.No.1974/2022

BETWEEN:

V.Bharath Kumar,
S/o Venkataswamy,
Aged about 21 years,
Residing at No.64,
6 th Cross, S.S.A.Road,
Cholanayakanahally,
R.T.Nagara Post,
Bengaluru-560032.                             ...Appellant

(By Ms. K.Raksha Keerthana, Advocate)

AND:

1. The State of Karnataka
By Pattanayakanahalli Police Station,
Represented by its State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru-560001.
                        3


2. Rangamani,
W/o Rangaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
R/o Hemdore Village,
Sira Taluk,
Tumakuru District-560062.                 ...Respondents

(By Sri H.S.Shankar, HCGP for R1;
R2 - served, unrepresented)

       This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 praying to set
aside the order passed by the III Additional District
and        Sessions        Judge,       Tumkuru         in
Crl.Misc.No.1594/2022 dated 09.11.2022 by allowing
the appeal filed by the appellant for the offence p/u/s
143, 144, 147, 302, 365, 367,109, 114 read with 149
of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act and
etc.


       These Criminal Appeals coming on for admission
this day, the Court delivered the following:


                       JUDGMENT

These two appeals are disposed of by a common

order. The appellant in Crl.A.No.2048/2022 is

accused no.4 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.1974/2022

is accused no.5 in Cr.No.61/2022 registered by

Pattanayakanahalli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District.

Appellants filed separate applications for bail viz.,

Crl.Misc.No.1594/2022 and Crl.Misc.No.1556/2022 in

the court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Tumakuru. Since they have stood dismissed, the

appellants have approached this court by filing appeal

under section 14A (2) of Schedule Castes and

Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

['Atrocities Act' for short].

2. It is to be mentioned here that the appellant

in Crl.A.No.2048/2022 moved for bail before this court

by filing Crl.A.No.1399/2022 and it was withdrawn by

the appellant. However liberty was granted to him to

move the trial court for bail after investigation was

over. Likewise the appellant in Crl.A.No.1974/2022

also filed Crl.A.No.1672/2022 before this court and he

also withdrew this appeal. After investigation was

over, the appellants move the trial court for bail.

3. Charge sheet is filed for the offence

punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 302, 365,

367, 109, 114 r/w 149 IPC and section 3(ii)(v) of

Atrocities Act. In brief the prosecution case is that

one Rangaiah, the deceased used to send obscene

messages to the mother and sister of accused no.1.

This prompted accused no.1 to take revenge against

the deceased and pursuant to the same he took the

help of his friends including the appellants herein and,

on 14.06.2022 at about 9.00 p.m. when the deceased

was sitting inside his house after having dinner,

accused no.1 along with other accused kidnapped him

and brought the deceased to Hebbal, Bengaluru in a

vehicle. It is alleged that in the vehicle the deceased

was severely assaulted and after reaching Hebbal, the

deceased was taken inside a gym and again assaulted.

Thereafter the deceased was admitted to hospital. On

22.6.2022, Rangaiah died. If the order impugned in

both the appeals are read, the court below appears to

have not assessed the charge sheet. Its opinion is

that if bail is granted to the appellants, they may

indulge in tampering the evidence and influencing the

witnesses.

4. I have heard Sri. C.Gopalakrishnamurthy,

learned counsel for the appellant in

Crl.A.No.2048/2022 and Ms. Smt. K.Raksha

Keerthana, learned counsel for the appellant in

Crl.A.No.1974/2022 and also the Government Pleader

Sri.H.S.Shankar.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants refer to

three statements said to have been given by eye

witness viz., Karan Jadhav. He is shown as the driver

of the vehicle in which the deceased was brought from

Sira to Hebbal. Perusal of these statement makes it

clear that there are some inconsistencies with regard

to the overt act attributed to the appellants.

Moreover charge sheet clearly indicates that Naveen is

the main accused. Because the deceased used to send

obscene messages to mother and sister of accused

no.1, he took the help of the other accused in

kidnapping the deceased from Sira. Even the overt

act of assaulting is more attributed to accused no.1

than the other accused. Moreover the Sessions Court

has already granted bail to accused no.6 and 7. The

overt act attributed to the appellants is same as the

overt act attributed to accused no.6 and 7 and

therefore appellants are entitled to claim parity.

Investigation is also completed. The appellants have

undertaken to abide by any condition that the court

imposes on them. Therefore there was no

impediment for the trial court to grant bail to the

appellants. In this view appeals deserve to be

allowed. Hence the following :

ORDER

Appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are

set aside. Accused no.4 and 5 shall be released on bail

by obtaining from each of them a bond for

Rs.1,00,000/- and providing two sureties for the

likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. They are

subjected to following conditions:

i. They shall not tamper with the evidence collected by the investigating officer and threaten the witnesses

ii. They shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial.

iii. Till conclusion of the trial, the appellants shall mark their attendance

before the jurisdictional police once in 15 days, preferably on every Sunday between 9 a.m. and 12 noon.

iv. They shall not get involved in any other criminal case/s in future. In case if any FIR is registered against them, the same will be considered for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sd