Karnataka High Court
Sri Shyam Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4951
CRL.A No. 2329 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2329 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SHYAM KUMAR
S/O GENDORI THATI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/A VEERANNA BUILDING
ADDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU-560 064.
PERMANENT ADDRESS
WARD NO.6, MAHESHWARA TOWN
NAKOTI POLICE STATION
BEGUSAROY DISTRICT
BIHAR STATE
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH BY THE POLICE OF RAJANAKUNTE POLICE STATION
COURT OF
KARNATAKA YELAHANKA TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 064
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT MAMATHA
W/O MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/A ADDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4951
CRL.A No. 2329 of 2023
YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU-560 064
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R-1
SRI. VIJAYA KUMARA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.2304/2023 DATED
27.11.2023 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.146/2023 (SPL.C.NO.1152/2023) OF COMPLAINT
POLICE RAJANAKUNTE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, REGISTERED FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 302
R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT
BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by appellant-accused No.4
praying to set aside the order dated 27.11.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.2304/2023 by the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore,
whereunder the bail petition of this appellant-accused
No.4 sought in respect of crime No.146/2023 of
Rajanukunte Police Station for the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
NC: 2024:KHC:4951
Code (for short hereinafter referred to as `IPC') and
Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Cast and Schedule Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter
referred to as `SC and ST Act'), came to be rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for appellant-accused No.4,
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 accused
persons are working as mestry and they working in the
undergoing construction of building belonging to CW-
2/Veeranna and staying in the said building. It is alleged
that accused persons during night hours use to consume
alcohol and make galata. In that regard, deceased
Maranna advised them several times. Inspite of that on
04.07.2023 at about 9.00 p.m. deceased Maranna and his
wife/CW-2 heard galata in the undergoing construction
building by accused persons and he told to his wife that he
will go and advise them otherwise they will not get sleep
NC: 2024:KHC:4951
due to their disturbance. Accordingly, he went to that
building which was undergoing construction and advised
accused Nos.1 to 4 not to make galata. At that time
deceased Maranna holding collar of the shirt of the
accused No.1 bought him outside, at that time all accused
decided to kill him. Accused No.1 has assaulted the
deceased Maranna with hands on his body, accused Nos.2
and 4 hold his both hands over back and accused No.3
assaulted him with hands. At that time, CW-1/wife of the
deceased asked accused persons leave the deceased
Maranna, at that time accused No.1 assaulted the
deceased with wooden repiece on his head and caused
severe injury, resulted in death. CW-1/wife of the
deceased has filed complaint. After investigation, charge
sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 4 for
offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section
34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act. The
appellant/accused No.4 who is in judicial custody has filed
bail application and same came to be rejected by
impugned order, which is challenged in this appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:4951
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would
contend that accusation against this appellant/accused
No.4 and accused No.2 is that they held hands of the
deceased, at that time accused Nos.1 and 3 assaulted the
deceased. He further submits that no overtacts is alleged
against this appellant/accused No.4 of assault to the
deceased. As the charge sheet is filed this appellant-
accused No.4 is not required for custodial interrogation.
Without considering all these aspect, the learned Sessions
Court has passed impugned order which requires
interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to allow
the appeal and grant of bail to the appellant-accused No.4.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
contend that CW-2/wife of the deceased is eye witness to
the incident, she has seen accused assaulting the
deceased. He further submits that accused No.4 is
resident of the Bihar, if he is grated bail it is difficult to
secure his presence for trial. There are chances of
NC: 2024:KHC:4951
threatening the only eye witness i.e. wife of the deceased.
With this, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would
contend that CW-1/wife of the deceased is eye witness to
the incident who has seen accused persons assaulting the
deceased and same has been stated in the complaint. CW-
2 is owner of the building which was undergoing
construction wherein accused persons are working
assaulted the deceased Maranna. Charge sheet materials
shows prima facie case against this appellant-accused
No.4 that this appellant-accused No.4 and accused No.2
held his hands and facilitated accused Nos.1 and 3 to
assault the deceased. This appellant-accused No.4 is
resident of the Bihar, if he is grated bail it is difficult to
secure his presence for trial. There are chances of
threatening the wife of the deceased who is only eye
witness to the incident. Considering all these aspects, the
learned Session judge has rightly rejected the bail petition
NC: 2024:KHC:4951
of this appellant-accused No.4. With this, she prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has
perused the impugned order and charge sheet materials.
8. The deceased Maranna went to the house which
is undergoing construction belonging to CW-2, whereunder
accused persons are staying and asked them to stop
galata as it is causing disturbance for sleep. At that time,
the deceased and accused persons quarreled and accused
persons assaulted the deceased with hands and wooden
repiece on his head and caused his death. The said
incident has been witnessed by the wife of the deceased
i.e. CW-1 who has filed complaint. As per averments of
the complaint she has seen accused person assaulting the
deceased. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem
examination of the dead body of the deceased has noted
that 08 injuries found over the dead body of the deceased
and opined that cause of death is due to blunt injuries
NC: 2024:KHC:4951
caused to the brain with wooden rod or iron rod leading to
nemogenic shock and cardio respiratory arrest. As per
column No.17 of the charge sheet this appellant-accused
No.4 and accused No.2 held hands of the deceased and
facilitated other accused persons to assault the deceased.
Accused persons with common intention assaulted the
deceased and caused death. The appellant-accused No.4
is resident of Bihar, if he grated bail it is difficult to secure
his presence for trial. There are chances of threatening
the only eye witness i.e. wife of the deceased and other
prosecution witnesses and fleeing from justice.
Considering all these aspects, there are no grounds for
setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail to the
appellant-accused No.4.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DSP
