Karnataka High Court

Karthik @ Robo vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2023

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                         -1-
                                               CRL.A No. 2247 of 2022




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

                                      BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2247 OF 2022
               BETWEEN:

               1.   KARTHIK @ ROBO
                    S/O LATE MUTHURAJ
                    AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
                    RESIDING AT 3RD MAIN ROAD
                    3RD C CROSS
                    BACHANNA LAYOUT
                    B CHANNASANDRA KASTURI NAGAR
                    BENGALURU CITY
                    BENGALURU - 560 043.
                                                        ...APPELLANT


Digitally      (BY SRI. TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADVOCATE)
signed by
LAKSHMI T      AND:
Location:
High Court     1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
of Karnataka
                    BY AVALAHALLI P S
                    REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                    HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    BENGALURU - 560 001.

               2.   ROOPA V
                    W/O G VENKATESH @ KULLA VENKATESH
                    AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
                    NO 244, 3RD MAIN 2ND CROSS
                    BHOVI COLONY
                             -2-
                                        CRL.A No. 2247 of 2022




    RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
    BENGALURU - 560 016.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY   SRI.   K.NAGESHWARAPPA,    HCGP              FOR      R1;
SRI.B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)


     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
14.02.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU     RURAL     DISTRICT,   BENGALURU     IN
SPL.C.NO.5/2022. ETC.,

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

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused

No.6 and learned the High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel for

respondent No.2/De-facto complainant.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, praying to set aside the order dated

14.12.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

rejecting the bail application of the appellant/accused No.6

CRL.A No. 2247 of 2022

and consequently, to enlarge him on bail in Crime

No.257/2021 registered at Avalahalli Police Station.

3. Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 8

for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302, 143,

120B, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance 2014.

4. Initially the learned Sessions judge rejected the

prayer seeking bail. The appellant preferred Crl. A

No.1055/2022 before this Court which was dismissed vide

order dated 13.07.2022. Subsequently the appellant once

again approached the learned sessions judge under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C., which came to be dismissed by an

order dated 14.12.2022.

5. The case of the prosecution in brief is that,

there was a property dispute between accused No.1 and

deceased G. Venkateksh @ Kulla Venkatesh in respect of

property bearing No.4 situated in Survey No.35 of

CRL.A No. 2247 of 2022

Maragondanahalli Village. Hence, accused No.1 conspired

with other accused persons to commit his murder and in

furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy hatched by the

accused persons, on 25.09.2021 at about 10.30 a.m.,

accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 travelled in a auto-rickshaw

bearing No.KA-03-AD-6730 and accused Nos.2 and 6

travelled in a motorcyle bearing Registration No.KA-55-L-

2231. They followed the deceased who was proceeding on

his two wheeler bearing Registration No.KA-53-EF-3934

and waylaid him in front of one Sri Nidhi Residency and

Bar situated on Maragondanahalli Road and assaulted him

indiscriminately with the deadly weapons they were

carrying and committed his murder.

6. According to prosecution CWs.2 to 4 are the

eye witnesses to the incident. The said witnesses have

identified the appellant as the one who was riding the two

wheeler. It is alleged that accused No.1 entered into

conspiracy with other accused persons and all the accused

formed an unlawful assembly armed with lethal weapons

CRL.A No. 2247 of 2022

and they followed the deceased in two vehicles and

brutally assaulted him and committed his murder.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the de-facto

complainant has contended that, according to the eye

witnesses, the appellant came on a motorcycle along with

accused No.2 and then accused No.2 got down from the

said motor cycle and joined other accused to assault the

deceased. After committing the murder the said accused

fled the scene in two vehicles brought by them. He

therefore contends that the intention of the

appellant/accused No.6 to commit the murder of deceased

is very clear. He contends that in view of the material

collected by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge

has rightly dismissed his petition seeking bail. He would

further contend that subsequent to the release of accused

Nos.5 and 7 on bail, a NCR case has been registered at

Krishnarajpura Police Station for causing damage to the

grave of deceased. He contends that accused are

intimidating the witnesses and therefore, in the event of

CRL.A No. 2247 of 2022

grant of relief to the appellant, there are chances of

tampering or threatening the eye witnesses.

8. The learned High Court Government Pleader

contends that this Court having regard to the entire facts

and circumstances of the case and the gravity of the

offence committed has rejected the prayer seeking bail

and there are no changed circumstances. He further

contends that there is no illegality committed by the

learned Special Judge in dismissing the prayer seeking

bail. He therefore, seeks to dismiss the bail.

9. It is no doubt true that this Court has dismissed

similar prayer sought by the appellant/accused No.6 after

considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

However, the learned counsel for appellant has brought to

the notice of the Court that accused No.5, who is similarly

placed as appellant/accused No.6 has been enlarged on

bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. A copy of the

order dated 18.11.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal

No.1355/2022 has been produced.

CRL.A No. 2247 of 2022

Para Nos.8 and 9 of the said order are extracted

hereunder:

'8. Now, so far as the incident is

concerned, the charge sheet clearly indicates

accused 1 to 4 to be the main assailants. They

have been identified by the eye witnesses. So

far as the appellant is concerned, he is shown to

be the driver of auto rickshaw which dashed the

scooter being ridden by the deceased. Therefore

he is shown to be a member of conspiracy.

Whether he is a member of conspiracy or not

cannot be decided at this stage. It requires

evidence. Direct evidence for conspiracy is

seldom available and inferences have to be

drawn from other proved facts.

9. Since specific overt-act of causing

injuries is not attributed to appellant, and it

appears he has no criminal antecedents, I do

not think that there is any impediment for

CRL.A No. 2247 of 2022

granting bail. However, keeping in mind the

apprehension expressed by the counsel for

second respondent about likelihood of witnesses

being threatened by the appellant, stringent

conditions may be imposed.'

10. It is the specific case of the prosecution that

accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 travelled in an auto-rickshaw

driven by accused No.5 and accused No.2 was on a

motorcycle which was ridden by appellant/accused No.6.

The said accused followed the deceased who was

proceeding on a two wheeler and then waylaid him

accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted him with deadly weapons

and committed his murder. CWs.1 to 3 are the eye

witnesses to the incident. It cannot be said that there is

no role played by the appellant herein. However, the

specific overt acts of assaulting the deceased is attributed

against accused Nos.1 to 4. The overt acts attributed

against accused No.5 and the appellant/accused No.7 are

one and the same. Since accused No.5 has been enlarged

CRL.A No. 2247 of 2022

on bail, the appellant is also entitled for the relief on the

ground of parity.

11. The learned Sessions Judge while dismissing

the praying seeking bail has observed that 'similarity can

be drawn with regard to the role attributed to accused

Nos.5 and 6. Hence there was scope for applying the

principle of parity and admitting accused No.6 to bail.'

However, rejected the prayer on the ground that there is a

NCR case registered at Krishnarajapura Police Station for

causing damage to the grave of deceased Venkatesh and

the said NCR was registered on the basis of the complaint

lodged by CW.1. The learned Sessions Judge has further

observed that 'One of the criteria for entertaining the bail

application of accused is that they should not indulge in

tampering or threatening the prosecution witnesses. The

destruction of tomb of the deceased is the subtle form of

threatening the witnesses in the case and the destruction

of tomb of the deceased is more pointing towards the

accused, including the applicant and the said circumstance

- 10 -

CRL.A No. 2247 of 2022

brought on record by the learned counsel for complainant

indicates that the applicant would not be a person to abide

by such requirement.'

12. Admittedly, NCR was registered against

unknown persons. If the accused who are enlarged on bail

have violated any of the conditions or if they are indulged

in intimidating or threatening the witnesses, it is always

open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of their bail.

Rejecting the prayer of the appellant on the above

grounds stated by the learned Sessions Judge may not be

proper. In view of the fact that similarly placed accused

No.5 has been enlarged on bail, by imposing appropriate

conditions, the appellant can be admitted to bail. Hence,

the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

The order dated 14.12.2022 passed in

Spl.C.No.5/2022 by the Court of II Additional District and

- 11 -

CRL.A No. 2247 of 2022

Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural

District, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

The appellant/accused No.6 is directed to be released

on bail in Spl.C.No.5/2022 on the file of the Court of II

Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,

Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (Crime No.257/2021

of Avalahalli Police Station) subject to following conditions:

i He shall execute a personal bond in a

sum of Rs.2,00,00/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs only) with two sureties for the

likesum to the satisfaction of the

Jurisdictional Court.

[[[

ii. He shall furnish proof of his current

residential address and shall inform the

Court if there is any change in the

address.