Karnataka High Court
Shri. Aniketh Mirashi S/O. Vijay ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 April, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6336
CRL.A No. 100187 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100187 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SHRI. ANIKETH MIRASHI S/O VIJAY MIRASHI,
AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
PRESENT ADDRESS R/O. #759,
PREMANAGAR, KIRAVATTI, YELLAPUR,
DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581412.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH YELLAPUR PS,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580008.
2. MR. UJWAL S/O PRAKASH KAKKERIKAR,
AGE. 18 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. KAMATIKOPPA, POST. GUNDOLLI,
Digitally signed
TQ. HALIYAL, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581329.
... RESPONDENTS
by
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
VIJAYALAKSHMI Location: HIGH
COURT OF
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
M KANKUPPI
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2024.04.18
SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
10:56:47 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A (2) OF SC AND ST
(POA) ACT, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2024
PASSED BY IIND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTAR
KANNADA, AT KARWAR AND RELEASE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
NO.2 ON BAIL IN YELLAPUR P.S. CRIME NO.51/2024 REGISTERED
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 341, 302, 504, 506
R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) OF
SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULE TRIBES (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT, 2015, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6336
CRL.A No. 100187 of 2024
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by accused No.2 praying to set aside
the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, where under the bail
application filed by the appellant/ accused No.2 in Yallapur
Police Station in Crime No.51/2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 302, 504 and 506
r/w Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and
3(2)(va) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (prevention of
atrocities) Act, came to be rejected.
2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1/ State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, respondent
No.2 has filed a complaint and the same came to be registered
in Yallapur Police Station under Crime No.51/2024 against the
appellant and others for the offences stated supra. In the
complaint, it is stated that, when the respondent No.2 and his
brother deceased Prajwal and his friend were moving on the
motorcycle, they over took a Pulsar motorcycle and thereafter,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6336
the said Pulsar motorcycle over took their bike and when they
stopped their bike, a car and Splendor motorcycle came and
five persons have assaulted his brother Prajwal with their hands
on his body and one person who is fat has slapped on his cheek
with force and Prajwal fell down and he was taken to the
hospital in the Ambulance, wherein the Doctor on examination
told that, he is dead. In the complaint, the respondent No.2 has
stated the names of seven persons including the appellant
stating that, they have assaulted the deceased and among
them, accused No.1 has assaulted the deceased with hand on
his cheek. The appellant came to be arrested on 28.02.2024
filed a bail application before the Special/ Sessions Court and
the same came to be rejected by impugned order dated
21.03.2024 which is challenged in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for appellant would contend that,
the alleged incident has taken place with regard to the silly
matter of overtaking the vehicle and there was no intention on
the part of the appellant and other accused to kill the deceased.
There is no specific overt act of this petitioner/ accused No.2 is
stated in the complaint. As the major portion of the
investigation is over, the appellant is not required for custodial
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6336
interrogation. With this he prays to allow the appeal and grant
bail to the appellant.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 would contend that, the deceased belongs to
Schedule Caste and the accused persons for silly reason have
assaulted the deceased and he succumbed to the injuries. The
post mortem report indicates that, the deceased died due to
the head injury. He submits that, investigation is still in
progress and the appellant is an influential person and at this
stage, if he is granted bail, he may hamper investigation and
tamper the prosecution evidence.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contend that,
the post mortem report indicates that, there were deep
abrasion on the mid of forehead measuring 2x1.5 c.m.,
abrasion to the right medial ankle and opined that the death is
due to brain injury. The appellant after the incident has
absconded and he was secured after four days. The
Investigation officer has given requisition on 15.03.2024 to
conduct the test identification parade and therefore, the
petitioner is required for investigation. The investigation is still
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6336
in progress and at this stage, if the appellant is granted bail, he
will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution
witnesses, with this he prays to dismiss the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant and
the Court has perused the material placed on record.
8. Upon perusal of the averments of the complaint
indicates that, the incident has taken place with regard to
overtaking of the vehicle. Even though, the appellant and the
respondent No.2 are strangers there is an allegation against the
accused Nos.1 to 7 of assaulting the deceased with hands and
their names were mentioned in complaint after ascertaining
their names. The respondent No.2 who has filed complaint, is
also an eye witness to the incident and there are other eye
witnesses named in the complaint. What is the exact role of
this appellant is required to be ascertained after filing of the
charge sheet. As the investigation is still in progress, the
appellant is not entitled for grant of bail.
9. Considering the said aspects the learned Sessions/
Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of the
appellant. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6336
order and grant bail to the appellant/ accused No.2. In the
result, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PJ
CT:BCK
