Karnataka High Court

Mr Dayananda @ Daya vs The State Of Karnatka on 15 February, 2024

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2024:KHC:6521
                                                         CRL.A No. 103 of 2024




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2024

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    MR DAYANANDA @ DAYA
                            AGED 35 YEARS
                            S/O RANGASWAMY
                            R/AT SHIVAKUMAR'S RENTED HOUSE,
                            NEAR LAKSHMIDEVI TEMPLE, HEROHALLI,
                            VISHWANEEDAM POST,
                            BENGALURU - 560091

                            PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
                            BAAGURU VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK,
                            HASSAN - 573 111.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT

                      (BY SRI. RAJANNA B.C.,ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA       1.    THE STATE OF KARNATKA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
                            REPRESENTED BY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                    PEENYA POLICE STATION
KARNATAKA
                            BENGALURU - 560 058
                            REPTD BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                            HIGH COURT COMPLEX
                            BENGALURU - 560 001.

                      2.    SMT. PAVITHRA
                            W/O ANAND R
                            AGED 24 YEARS,
                            R/AT RENTED HOUSE OF GOPAL,
                            5TH CROSS, GANGA BAR ROAD,
                            KARIMSAAB LAYOUT, HEGGANAHALLI,
                                   -2-
                                               NC: 2024:KHC:6521
                                           CRL.A No. 103 of 2024




    BENGALURU - 562 110.

    PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
    KODIPURA GRAMA VILLAGE,
    TALAWADI POST AND TALUK,
    ERODE DISTRICT,
    TAMIL NADU-638 461.

                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHAMAN, HCGP FOR R-1,
    R-2 IS PRESENT)

     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2023
PASSED BY THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE,   SPECIAL    JUDGE,   BENGALURU     (CCH-71)   IN
CRL.MISC.NO.10490/2023 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S
120(B), 302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL
JUDGE,    BENGALURU     (CCH-71)    IN    CR.NO.228/2023
SPL.C.NO.2195/2023 AND ETC,.

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

                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by appellant-accused No.3

praying to set aside the order dated 16.11.2023 passed in

Crl.Misc.No.10490/2023 by the LXX Additional City Civil

Sessions Judge, Special Judge Bengaluru, whereunder the

bail petition of this appellant-accused No.3 sought in

respect of crime No.228/2023 of Peenya Police Station for

NC: 2024:KHC:6521

the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B

read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short

hereinafter referred to as `IPC') and Section 3(2)(v) of the

Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as

`SC and ST Act'), came to be rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-accused

No.3 and learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State. On the previous date of hearing

respondent No.2 is present and she prayed not to grant

bail to this appellant-accused No.3.

3. The case of the prosecution is that accused

No.1 was doing catering business and deceased-Anand

was working as cook in the said catering business of

accused No.1. Thereafter, six months prior the incident,

the deceased-Anand left cooking work and started

separate catering business and therefore accused Nos.1 to

3 were grudge against the deceased-Anand. Thereafter,

accused Nos.1 to 3 conspired to kill the deceased. In

NC: 2024:KHC:6521

furtherance of said conspiracy, on 01.07.2023 accused

Nos.2 and 3 took the deceased-Anand and made him to

consume alcohol, at about 9.20p.m. suddenly started

quarrelling with him. At that time accused No.2 assaulted

the deceased-Anand with hands and kicked him and

deceased fell down. At that time accused No.3 held legs

of the deceased and accused No.2 took big size stone

fallen there and threw the same on the head of the

deceased and killed him. Thereafter, accused No.1 and 2

purchased petrol and diesel and by putting petrol and

diesel on the dead body of the deceased, burnt the dead

body of the deceased and destroyed the evidence.

Charge sheet has been filed against this appellant and

other accused persons for offence punishable under

Section 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC and

Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act. The appellant-

accused No.3 came to be arrested on 07.07.2023 and he

filed bail petition and same came to be rejected by

impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC:6521

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.3

would contend that there are no eye witnesses to the

incident. The case of the prosecution is based on

circumstantial evidence. There is no recovery of any article

at the instance of this appellant-accused No.3. FIR came

to be registered against unknown persons. No serious

overtacts are alleged against this appellant-accused No.3.

Serious overtacts are alleged against accused No.2 who is

alleged to have threw the big size stone on the head of the

deceased and killed him. As charge sheet is filed this

appellant-accused No.3 is not required for custodial

interrogation. The appellant-accused No.3 is having wife

and kids who are depending on his earning. With this, he

prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellant-

accused No.3.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1-State would contend that this

appellant-accused No.3 is brother-in-law of accused No.2

with whom the deceased was working as cook in his

NC: 2024:KHC:6521

catering business. Accused persons have grudge with the

deceased-Anand as he left working with accused No.1 and

started separate catering business. There is recovery of

blood stain clothes of this appellant-accused No.3 and

vehicle. The voluntary statement of this appellant-accused

No.3 establishes that he is involved in the commission of

the murder of the deceased. Charge sheet materials

shows prima facie case against this appellant-accused

No.3 for offences alleged against him. With this, he prays

for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Having heard learned counsel for appellant-

accused No.3 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 -

State this Court has gone through the impugned order and

charge sheet materials.

7. The accusation against this appellant-accused

No.3 is that he held legs of the deceased-Anand and

accused No.2 threw the big size stone on the head of the

deceased-Anand and killed him. There is no serious

overtact is alleged against this appellant-accused No.3.

NC: 2024:KHC:6521

Serious overtacts are alleged against accused No.2 who is

alleged to have threw the big size stone on the head of the

deceased and killed him. As the entire case of the

prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, the

prosecution has to prove each of the circumstances to

establish the guilt of this appellant-accused No.3. As

investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed

there is no necessity of continuing this appellant-accused

No.3 in judicial custody. Without considering all these

aspects learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned

order which requires interference by this Court.

8. The appellant-accused No.3 has made out

grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of

bail.

In the result, the following;

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

NC: 2024:KHC:6521

The impugned order dated 16.11.2023 passed in

Crl.Misc.No.10490/2023 by the LXX Additional City Civil

Sessions Judge, Special Judge Bengaluru is set aside. The

bail petition of appellant-accused No.3 stands allowed.

Appellant-accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail

in crime No.228/2023 of Peenya Police Station subject to

the following conditions:

i. Appellant-accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.