Karnataka High Court
Bheemesh vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 4 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2802
CRL.A No. 200044 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 200050 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200044 OF 2024 (U/S 14 (A))
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200050 OF 2024 (U/S 14 (A))
IN CRL.A. NO.200044 OF 2024.
BETWEEN:
1. SANTHU @ SANTOSH @ SANTOSHKUMAR
S/O KAMANNA,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O UPPARWADI, SINDHANOOR,
Digitally signed TQ. SINDHANOOR, DIST. RAICHUR-584121.
by KHAJAAMEEN
L MALAGHAN 2. GUDIHAL DEV @ DEVRAJ
Location: HIGH S/O BASAVARAJ BANTAGI,
COURT OF AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
KARNATAKA
R/O GUDIHAL VILLAGE, TQ. MASKI,
DIST. RAICHUR-584125.
3. RAVI @ KADI @ RAVIKUMAR S/O IRAPPA,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SINDHANOOR, TQ. SINDHANOOR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584121.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2802
CRL.A No. 200044 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 200050 of 2024
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ADDL. SPP OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT KALABURAGI-585102,
(THROUGH SINDHANOOR P. S.,
DISTRICT RAICHUR)-584101.
2. SMT. TIKKA LAXMI W/O MALLIKARJUN
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O KHADIRIYA COLONY, SINDHANOOR,
TQ. SINDHANOOR, DIST. RAICHUR-584121.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT.CHANDRAKALA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO I) SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01-02-2024 PASSED IN
CRL.MISC.NO.5008/ 2024 BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR SITTING AT SINDHANUR. II).
GRANT THE REGULAR BAIL TO THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED
NO.1 TO 3 IN SPL.A.C.NO.882/2023 (SINDHANUR TOWN P.S.
CRIME NO.142/2023 DISTRICT RAICHUR), PENDING ON THE
FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAICHUR, SITTING AT SINDHANUR, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S. 323, 326, 307, 504, 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF
IPC AND U/S 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2), (V) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT-2015.
IN CRL.A.NO.200050 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
BHEEMESH S/O SANNA SIDDAPPA KORAWAR,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: FRUIT VENDING BUSINESS,
R/O VENKATESHWARA COLONY,
NEAR MARIKAMBA TEMPLE,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2802
CRL.A No. 200044 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 200050 of 2024
SINDHANUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
POLICE, SHO, SINDHANUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR,
R/ BY, ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH.
2. SMT. TIKKA LAXMI W/O MALLIKARJUN
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC: WORKING AT MAHA KIDS CLOTH MERCHANT,
R/O KHADIRIYA COLONY, SINDHANUR,
TQ. SINDHANUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT.CHANDRAKALA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO I) SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.02.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC
NO.5008/2024 BY III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, RAICHUR SITTING AT SINDHANUR. II) GRANT THE
REGULAR BAIL TO THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 IN SPL A.C
NO.882/2023 (SINDHANUR TOWN P.S, CRIME NO.142/2023
DISTRICT RAICHUR) PENDING ON THE FILE OF III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR
SITTING AT SINDHANUR, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/SECS 323,326, 307, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/SEC
3(1) (R) (S), 3(2) (V) OF SC/ST PA AMENDED ACT 2015.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2802
CRL.A No. 200044 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 200050 of 2024
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and learned High Court Government Pleader for
State in both the appeals. Perused the objections
statement filed by respondent No.2.
in Spl. AC No.882/2023 (Sindhanur Town P.S., arising out
of Crime No.142/2023) pending on the file of III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Raichur sitting at Sindhanur,
for the offences punishable under Sections 323,326, 307,
504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1) (r) (s),
3(2) (v) of SC & ST (POA) Amended Act 2015, have filed
these appeals seeking to set aside the impugned order
dated 1-2-2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.5008/2024 and
seeking grant of regular bail.
3. It is alleged against these appellants/accused
that the son of the complainant Raghavendra was having
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2802
acquaintance with accused Nos. 1 to 4 and along with
accused Nos. 2 and 4 he was involved in a theft case and
therefore, he was arrested in that case. The mother of the
complainant having noticed the same, had restrained
Raghavendra not to be in the company of accused Nos.1
to 4. On 26-09-2023 at about 1.30 p.m., when
Raghavendra was near APMC II gate, accused No.2 took
him by inducing him to consume liquor and with the
assistance of accused Nos. 1,3 and 4 insisted Raghavendra
to accompany them for a theft. When Raghavendra had
refused, he was abused in filthy words taking the name of
the caste and also assaulted him with rope, sticks, wheel
jack spanner etc., and caused grievous injuries to him.
He was also threatened not to disclose the incident to
anybody and therefore, Raghavendra stated before the
complainant that he had fallen and sustained injuries, but
the injuries resulted in septicemia and therefore, on
5-10-2023, he disclosed the incident to the complainant
and as such, the complaint was lodged to the police
alleging the aforesaid offences.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2802
4. The investigating Officer has filed the
chargesheet after the investigation for the aforesaid
offences.
5. Now the learned counsels appearing for the
appellants contend that there is a delay in filing the
complaint and the injured had not disclosed about the
incident at the earliest point of time. It is contended that
there are no criminal antecedents against these appellants
and therefore, the appellants are entitled for grant of bail.
It is also submitted that there was no such intention which
could be deciphered from the act of the accused about the
murder and therefore, the appellants may be granted
regular bail.
6. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-
State submits that the accused had insisted the injured to
accompany them for committing the offence and when he
had refused, he was assaulted by them and therefore,
there is a prima facie case against the accused and as
such, the appeals deserve to be dismissed. It is submitted
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2802
that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the bail
application by considering the nature of the allegations
made and that the injuries sustained by he said
Raghavendra. The objection statement of the respondent
No.2 discloses that the injured had sustained severe
injuries, exposing the muscles and tendons of the foot and
leg. Respondent No. 2 has alleged that the accused had
inflicted the injuries and had threatened the injured not to
disclose the incident.
7. The perusal of the complaint and other charge-
sheet papers made available to this Court would show that
the accused and the injured were involved in theft case
and when the injured had refused to accompany them for
committing any of the offences, he was assaulted by the
accused. On perusal of the papers, it would disclose that
the intention of the accused was to take the injured along
with them for commission of the theft. It is not the
allegation against these accused that there was an
intention to kill him. Therefore, the alleged motive to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2802
commit the murder is not made out in the prosecution
papers.
8. When the intention of committing the murder is
not shown, the offence punishable under Section 307 of
IPC is not prima facie attracted to the case. The injuries
suffered by the injured are grievous in nature, thereby the
provisions of Section 326 are attracted. The other offences
alleged are not grave enough which warrant the detention
of the accused, when the chargesheet is already filed by
the Investigating Officer.
9. Learned HCGP, replying to a query raised by
this Court has submitted that he is informed by the
Investigating Officer that these appellants do not have
any criminal antecedents. However, the complaint itself
mentions that the injured as well as accused Nos. 2 and 3
were involved in a theft case and they were in custody.
Therefore, I do not find any reason to detain the accused
any more as it would be nothing but pretrial punishment.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2802
Hence, the appeals deserve to the allowed. Consequently,
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeals are allowed.
(ii) The impugned order passed by the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, sitting at
Sindhanur, rejecting the bail petitions of
appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crl.Misc.No.5008/2024
dated 01-02-2024 is hereby set aside.
(iii) The appellants in both these appeals who are
accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 142/2023 of Sindhanur
Town Police Station (pending before the III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, Sitting at Sindhanur)
are ordered to be released on bail, subject to the condition
that they shall execute personal bonds for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- each with a surety for the likesum and also
with the following conditions:
(a) The appellants shall not indulge in any criminal
activities during the pendency of this case;
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2802
(b) The appellants shall co-operate with the
Investigating Officer as and when required and
they shall mark their attendance before the
SHO of concerned P.S., on every alternate
Sunday for a period of 01 year from the date of
this order.
(c) The appellants shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses either directly or
indirectly and shall not have any sort of
contact with the injured;
(d) Any violation of the conditions of bail would call
for automatic forfeiture of the bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE
tsn*
CT:PK
