Karnataka High Court
Santhosh Kumar @ Batli Mani vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7025
CRL.A No. 1850 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 46 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1850 OF 2023
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 46 OF 2024
IN CRL. A. No.1850/2023:
BETWEEN:
VIJAYANANDAN B @ VIJAY @ ANBU
S/O LATE BABU
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
8TH 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN
N S PALYA. BTM 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 078.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI CHANDRAPPA K N, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
AND:
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF MICOLAYOUT POLICE STATION
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE.
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. LOKESH
S/O SELVAM
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT No. OLD, No.805 NEW No.916
NEAR DPA SANGA J D MARA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7025
CRL.A No. 1850 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 46 of 2024
SLUM N S PALYA, B G ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2023
PASSED IN SPL.C.No.740/2020 BY THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BANGALORE
(CCH-71) ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN
(CR.NO.148/2020) IN SPL.C.NO.740/2020 AT MICO LAYOUT
POLICE STATION, OFFENCE U/S 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 506
R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 25(1)(1-B) AND 27(3)
OF INDIAN ARMS ACT AND 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST ACT, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF HONBLE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-
71) AND ETC.,
IN CRL.A.No.46/2024:
BETWEEN:
SANTHOSH KUMAR @
BATLI MANI (A1)
S/O KAMALESH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT No.145/61/8, 9TH CROSS
4TH MAIN ROAD, BRM 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 078.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M R NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MICOLAYOUT POLICE STATION
BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7025
CRL.A No. 1850 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 46 of 2024
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI LOKESH
S/O SELVAM
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT No.805, NEW No.916
NEAR D.P.A SOCIETY
J.D.MARA SLUM .
N S PALYA, B G ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2023
IN SPL.C.No.740/2020 (IN CR.No.148/2020 OF MICO LAYOUT
POLICE STATION) ON THE FILE OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 506 R/W
SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 25(1)(1-b)(B), 27(3) OF
INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959 AND U/S 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 1989 AND ETC.,
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Crl.A.No.1850/2023 is filed by accused No.6, praying
to set-aside the order dated 05.09.2023 passed in special
Case No.740/2020 by the LXX Additional City Civil and
Sessions / Special Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder, the bail
application of the appellant - accused No.6 came to be
rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:7025
2. Crl.A.No.46/2024 is filed by accused No.1, praying to
set-aside the order dated 16.08.2023 passed in special
Case No.740/2020 by the LXX Additional City Civil and
Sessions / Special Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder, the bail
application of the appellant - accused No.1 came to be
rejected.
3. In both the appeals, the appellants had sought grant
of bail in Crime No.148/2020 of MICO Layout Police
Station, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 506 r/w Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred
to as 'IPC'), Sections 25(1)(1B)(b) and 27(3) of the Indian
Arms Act, 1959 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST
Act").
4. Heard learned counsels for the appellants in both the
appeals and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 - State. Inspite of service of notice in
NC: 2024:KHC:7025
both the appeals, respondent No.2 has remained absent
and unrepresented.
5. Case of the prosecution is that; on 03.08.2020, at
about 8.30 pm., when the deceased Mani was sitting on
the terrace of Solanki Fashions along with CW2 and
accused Nos.5 and 6, at that time, accused Nos.1 to 4
came there. Accused No.1 assaulted with long chopper on
the face of the deceased Mani, accused No.2 assaulted
with machete on the deceased who held the said machete.
At that time, accused No.1 told accused Nos.5 and 6 that
the said Mani has also assaulted him and asked them to
take revenge. At that time, accused Nos.5 and 6 have
held the deceased Mani, and accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted
the deceased Mani on his head, face, neck, ear, right
hand, left hand and other parts with long chopper and
machete and thereafter, accused Nos.5 and 6 also
assaulted the said Mani with machete and threw the
weapons on the spot and gave threat to PW2 and went
away.
NC: 2024:KHC:7025
6. Charge sheet came to be filed against accused
Nos.1 to 6 for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 147,
148, 302, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC, Section
25(1)(1B)(b) and 27(3) of the Indian Arms Act and
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Accused No.1 who is in
judicial custody filed bail application in Special Case
No.740/2020 and the same came to be rejected by order
dated 16.08.2023 which is challenged in
Crl.A.No.46/2024. Accused No.3 who is in judicial custody
has filed bail application in Special Case No.740/2020 and
the same came to be rejected by order dated 05.09.2023
which is challenged in Crl.A.No.1850/2023.
7. Since, both the appeals are arising out of the same
case ie., Special Case No.740/2020 (Crime No.148/2020
of MICO Layout Police Station), they were taken together
for final disposal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant in
Crl.A.No.46/2024 would contend that F.I.R came to be
registered against the unknown persons. The eye witness
NC: 2024:KHC:7025
namely, CW2 has already been examined as PW6 and the
prosecution in all, has examined six witnesses. He
contends that as the material witnesses were examined
and as the other witnesses are formal witnesses, there
cannot be any threat to the prosecution witnesses. He
contends that the Investigating Officer has not collected
the CCTV footage of the scene of offence. He contends
that pendency of the criminal cases and criminal
antecedents are not the grounds for rejecting the bail
application, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He
contends that the appellant - accused is in judicial custody
since last three years and the trial will take considerable
time. He further submits that accused No.1 has worked as
volunteer and a certificate has been issued in that regard
by the Zilla Panchayath and it shows that he is having
social concern. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal
and grant bail to the appellant - accused No.1.
9. Learned counsel for appellant - accused No. 6 would
contend that as material witness, i.e., C.W.2 has been
NC: 2024:KHC:7025
examined as P.W.6, he is seeking bail on that ground even
though his bail petition is rejected earlier. He further
contends that counsel for appellant No. 6 has cross-
examined P.W.6 - the sole eye witness to the incident. He
contends that material witnesses are examined and
remaining witnesses are formal witnesses and trial of the
case will take considerable time. On these grounds he
prayed for setting aside the impugned order and grant of
bail.
10. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that the
offence alleged against appellants - accused Nos.1 and 6 is
a heinous offence punishable with either death or
imprisonment for life. C.W.2 who is the sole eye witness
has already been examined as P.W.6. Appellants are
having criminal antecedents and if they are granted bail
there is threat to the prosecution witnesses. He contends
that considering all these aspects learned Sessions/Special
Judge has rightly rejected their bail applications by the
impugned orders which does not call for any interference
NC: 2024:KHC:7025
by this Court. With this he prayed to dismiss both the
appeals.
11. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has
perused the impugned order and charge sheet material.
12. Criminal appeal filed by appellant - accused No.6
challenging the rejection of his bail order has been
dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 11.08.2021
passed in Crl.A. No. 736/2021. In the bail application new
ground urged by appellant - accused No. 6 is that eye
witness has already been examined as P.W.6 and
therefore, there is no threat to the prosecution witnesses.
Merely because eye witness has been examined is not a
ground to grant bail since the prosecution has to examine
the other charge sheet witnesses.
13. Even though eye witness - C.W.2 has been examined
as P.W.6 learned counsel for appellant - accused No. 1 has
not cross-examined him. Therefore P.W.6 is yet to be
cross-examined by learned counsel for accused No.1.
Considering the statement of eye witness - C.W.2, there is
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7025
specific overt act against appellants - accused Nos. 1 and
6 of assaulting the deceased - Mani with long chopper and
machete. One of the offence alleged against the appellants
is offence under Section 302 of IPC which is punishable
with death or imprisonment for life. Charge sheet material
show prima facie case against appellants - accused Nos. 1
and 6 for the offence alleged against them. Considering all
these aspects learned Special/Sessions Judge has rightly
passed the impugned order which does not call for any
interference by this Court. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 and
6 have not made out any grounds to set aside the
impugned order and grant bail. In the result, the
following;
ORDER
Both the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH,LRS
