Kumar @ Potash vs State By Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 6649 Kant

                                                 -1-
                                                               NC: 2023:KHC:34020
                                                         CRL.A No. 1195 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                               BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1195 OF 2023
                      BETWEEN:

                      KUMAR @ POTASH,
                      S/O CHIKKARANGAIAH URF CHIKKANNA,
                      AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
                      RESIDING AT PEDDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
                      KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
                      TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 219.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. H. V. PRAVEEN GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
                      AND:

                      1.    STATE BY KARNATAKA,
                            BY GUBBI POLICE STATION,
                            REPRESENTED BY
                            STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                            HIGH COURT, BANGALORE - 560 001.

Digitally signed by
                      2.    SRI. P.M. SRIDHAR,
LAKSHMINARAYANA             S/O MUDALAGIRIYAPPA,
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH              AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
COURT OF                    RESIDING AT PENDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KARNATAKA
                            KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
                            TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 219.

                            NOW RESIDING AT ADALAGARE VILLAGE,
                            NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
                            TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 223.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY. R, HCGP FOR R1;
                          R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
                            -2-
                                       NC: 2023:KHC:34020
                                   CRL.A No. 1195 of 2023




     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2023 PASSED IN
CRL.MISC.NO.1727/2022 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKURU AND TO ENLARGE
THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST BY
THE RESPONDENT POLICE GUBBI POLICE STATION IN
CR.NO.80 OF 2022 (SPL.C.NO.341/2022) ON THE FILE OF THE
HONOURABLE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 144, 148, 323, 324,
302, 201, 120B, 504, 114 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR
RELIEFS AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE DEEM FIT IN
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

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


                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.7

praying to set aside the order dated 15.10.2022 passed in

Crl.Misc.No.1208/2022 by the III Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Tumkuru, whereunder the bail application

of this appellant/accused No.7 sought in respect of Crime

No.80/2022 of Gubbi Police Station for the offences

punishable under Section 143, 144, 148, 323, 324, 302,

201, 120(B), 504, 114 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal

Code, and Section 3(2)(V) of the Schedule Cast/Schedule

NC: 2023:KHC:34020 CRL.A No. 1195 of 2023

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(for short "Act")

came to be rejected.

       2.      Heard      learned        counsel       for       the

appellant/accused        No.7      and   learned     High      Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State.                In spite

of   service    of   notice   to   respondent    No.2/Complaiant

remained absent and unrepresented.

3. The case of the prosecution is that it was

reported to the police that one Nandish took Girish.P.M.,

the brother of respondent No.2, with him at about 8.30

p.m and he did not return home. Thereafter, respondent

No.2 came to know that his brother Girish.P.M was found

dead near the pond, with the dead body of another person

some distance away from the dead body of his brother.

Respondent No.2 went to the place where the dead body

of another person was found and came to know that his

name was also Girish.K., a resident of Manchaladore

village. He noticed injuries on the dead body of his brother

NC: 2023:KHC:34020 CRL.A No. 1195 of 2023

Girish.P.M as well as injuries on the dead body of another

person, Girish.K. He suspected that one Nandish and

others accused have killed his brother Girish.P.M and

another person, who is also Girish.K. After completing

investigation, the investigation officer has filed a charge

sheet against 29 accused person. According to the

prosecution, the dead person was stealing coconut, areca

nuts, and other things, therefore, the villagers decided to

catch them red handed with their stolen things. Pursuant

to the same, both were assaulted, and they died. The dead

bodies were found near the pond. The present appellant,

who has arrayed as accused No.7 in the chargesheet,

apprehending his arrest, filed Crl.Mis.No.1394/2022

seeking anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the

impugned order dated 15.10.2022, which is challenged in

this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.7

would contend that the complainant is the brother of the

deceased Girish.P.M., and his statement is recorded under

NC: 2023:KHC:34020 CRL.A No. 1195 of 2023

Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. He neither in his statement nor

in his complaint stated the name of this appellant/accused

No.7. It is his further submission that C.W.2 to 8 who have

been cited as eyewitnesses in the charge sheet, and their

statements, were recorded on 22.04.2022 and further

statements were recorded on 11.07.2022. It is his further

submission that appellant/accused No.7 is said to have

assaulted the deceased with "wet stick" and it has not

been recovered. It is his further submission that accused

Nos.18 to 22 and 25 are granted bail. Therefore, on the

ground of parity appellant/accused No.7 is also entitled for

grant of anticipatory bail. As the charge sheet is filed,

appellant/accused No.7 is not required for custodial

interrogation. Without considering all these aspects, the

learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order,

which calls for interference at the hands of this Court, and

prayed to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, the learned HCGP would contend that

this case involves double murder. C.Ws.2 to 8 are

NC: 2023:KHC:34020 CRL.A No. 1195 of 2023

eyewitnesses who have specifically stated the overt acts of

this appellant/accused No.7. One of the deceased

sustained 21 injuries, and another deceased sustained 13

injuries, and the doctor who conducted the postmortem

opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage.

The chargesheet shows a prima-facie case against

appellant/accused No.7. He further contended that as

there is a bar under Section 18 of the 'Act', and by

considering the same, the learned Sessions Judge has

rightly rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by the

appellant/accused No.7. With this, he prayed for dismissal

of the appeal.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellant/accused No.7 and the learned HCGP, this Court

has gone through the impugned order and the charge

sheet records.

7. The case involves a double murder, i.e., one

Girish.P.M and another Girish.K. The case of the

prosecution is that the said two persons are thieves and

NC: 2023:KHC:34020 CRL.A No. 1195 of 2023

accused persons caught them red-handed, assaulted

them, and killed them. The avert act alleged against this

appellant/accused No.7 is that he is said to have assaulted

the deceased with "wet stick". The doctor who conducted

the postmortem examination of the dead body of the

deceased person has noted 21 injuries over Girish.P.M and

13 injuries over Girish.K and opined that death is due to

shock and hemorrhage as the result of injuries sustained.

C.Ws.2 to 8 are eyewitnesses who specifically stated the

avert act of appellant/accused No.7 assaulting the

deceased. The deceased belonged to schedule caste. On

perusal of the charge sheet, there is a prima facie case

against this appellant/accused No.7 for the offences

alleged against him. There is a bar under Section 18 of the

Act to entertain a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

Considering all these facts, the learned Sessions/Special

Judge has rightly passed the impugned order, rejecting

the anticipatory bail petition of appellant/accused No.7.

The appellant/accused No.7 has not made out any grounds

NC: 2023:KHC:34020 CRL.A No. 1195 of 2023

for setting aside the impugned order and grant

anticipatory bail. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DSP

CT: BHK