Karnataka High Court
Madhu D vs State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5164
CRL.A No. 2384 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2384 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MADHU D.,
S/O DYVA KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT SADALAHALLI VILLAGE,
BASHETTI HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA -562 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR H.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI BY DIBBURAHALLI P.S.,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
KARNATAKA CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. GAGAN B.N.,
S/O NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT BYRAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5164
CRL.A No. 2384 of 2023
(BY SMT ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R-1
V/O DATED 05.02.2024, NOTICE TO
R-2 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2023,
WHICH IS PASSED BY THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT IN
SPL.C.C.NO.123/2023 AND ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.121/2023 OF DIBBURHALLI P.S., CHIKKABALLAPURA
DISTRICT WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
120(B),302,341,504,506,114, R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE
THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT IN SPL.C.C.NO.123/2023 AND
ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by appellant-accused No.2
praying to set aside the order dated 20.11.2023 passed in
Spl.S.C.No.123/2023 by the I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, whereunder the bail
application of this appellant-accused No.2 sought in
respect of crime No.121/2023 of Dibburahalli Police
Station for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B,
302, 341, 504, 506, 114 of Indian Penal Code (for short
hereinafter referred to as `IPC') and Section 3(2)(v) of
NC: 2024:KHC:5164
the Schedule Caste 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.2
and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1. Inspite of service of notice respondent
No.2-complainant remained absent and unrepresented.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the
deceased and accused No.6 are members of Adi-dravida
caste and accused No.1 to 5 are the members of Vokkaliga
caste and since four years, accused No.1 had the illicit
relationship with accused No.6. On 04.08.2023 the
accused No.1 came near the house of accused No.6. While
the CW.8 the husband of accused No.6 came in front of
the house, hearing the horn sound of the motorcycle of
the accused No.1, he threw the mobile phone towards the
accused No.6. At that time, a quarrel took place between
the accused No.1 and CW.8. In this regard, the CW.8
requested the deceased Narayanaswamy to advise the
NC: 2024:KHC:5164
accused No.1. As such the deceased convened a
panchayath near the Silkworm house of accused No.3 and
during panchayath, the accused No.1 abused the deceased
Narayanaswamy and threatened with dire consequences.
Thereafter, on the advise of deceased Narayanaswamy,
the CW.8 lodged the complaint before the complainant
police and NCR No.144/2023 registered. After enquiry in
the said proceedings, a quarrel took place between
accused No.1 and deceased at the outside of police station
and the deceased threatened to lodge the atrocity case if
he intervene with the affairs of the women belong to his
caste and he also abused the brother of accused No.1. As
the deceased objected for the illicit relationship between
accused No.1 and 6, the accused No.1 and 6 developed ill-
will against the deceased and accused No.6 abetted the
accused No.1 to eliminate the deceased. Accordingly, the
accused No.1 conspired with his friends accused No.2 to 5
at the vacant land of North-East properties situated at
Belluti village and the Silkworm house of accused No.3 to
eliminate the deceased. As per their conspiracy, on
NC: 2024:KHC:5164
24.08.2023, the accused No.1 to 3 followed the deceased
who was traveling in the Omni car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-
M-2225 and while the deceased was proceeding towards
his village in the aforesaid Omni car, at 7.30 p.m., the
accused no.3 stopped the said car of deceased near the
land of CW.12 on the pretext of talking with regard to the
land transaction. At that time, the accused No.1 and 2
came from the backside of deceased and the accused no.1
threw the chilly powder on the face of deceased. The
deceased attempted to run away from the spot, however
the accused No.1 to 3 followed him and assaulted him with
chopper and dagger knife on his vital parts of the body
and caused grievous injuries. Due to the deadly assaults,
the deceased fell down and died at the spot. After
investigation, charge sheet has been filed against accused
persons for the aforesaid offences. The appellant/accused
No.2 is in judicial custody and filed bail application along
with accused Nos.3 and 4 and the same came to be
rejected by the impugned order, which is challenged in
this appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:5164
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.2
would contend that CW-3 and 4 are cited as eye witnesses
who are relatives of the deceased and their statements are
recorded after 28 days of the incident. It is further
submits that even the statement of CW-4/Geeta has been
recorded on 07.10.2023. He further submits that motive
is against accused No.1. As the charge sheet is filed, this
appellant-accused No.2 is not required for custodial
interrogation. Without considering all these aspects
learned Sessions Judge has passed impugned order which
requires interference by this Court. With this, he prays to
allow the appeal and grant of bail to the appellant-accused
No.2.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1-State would contend that the
offence alleged against this appellant-accused No.2 is
heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for
life. Serious overtacts are alleged against this appellant-
accused No.2 assaulting with knife. The post-mortem
NC: 2024:KHC:5164
report reveal that deceased has sustained 15 injuries and
some of the injuries are on vital part. She further
contends that CW-2 and 3 are eye witnesses to the
incident who are stated assault by this appellant-accused
No.2 to the deceased and causing injuries. Charge sheet
materials shows prima facie case against this appellant-
accused No.2. Considering all these aspects, she submits
that there are no grounds for allowing the appeal and
grant bail. 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. There is enmity between accused No.1 and
deceased Narayanswami as deceased advised the accused
No.1 in the Panchayath and at that time accused No.1
abused the deceased Narayanswami and threatened with
dire consequences. In that regard CW-8/Husband of the
accused No.6 lodged a complaint which came to registered
in NCR No. 144/2023. CW-9 and 10 are Panchayathdars in
the said Panchayath. Thereafter, it is alleged that accused
NC: 2024:KHC:5164
No.1 to 5 have conspired to kill the deceased
Narayanswami. In furtherance, accused Nos.1 and 2 have
secured chopper and dragger knife and were following the
deceased Narayanswami to commit his murder. CW-4 is
Geeta who is relative of the deceased Narayanswami, she
was traveling with deceased in his car. When accused No.1
and other accused persons were following the deceased
Narayanswami, she enquired, the deceased Narayanswami
told name of the accused No.1 who was with his friends.
Incident has been witnessed by CW-2 and 3 who are
stated regarding overtacts of this appellant/accused No.2
assaulting the deceased Narayanswami with knife and
causing severe injuries. Merely because delay in recording
the statements of CW-2 and 3 is not ground for grant of
bail as one of the alleged offence is punishable with death
or imprisonment for life. Considering the charge sheet
materials there is prima facie case against this appellant-
accused No.2. Considering all these aspects, the learned
Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of
this appellant-accused No.2. There are no grounds for
NC: 2024:KHC:5164
setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail to the
appellant-accused No.2.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DSP
