Karnataka High Court
Suresh K S @ Bharatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8075
CRL.A No. 2288 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2288 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SURESHA K S @ BHARATHA
SON OF SHAKARALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
KARAIAHANA KOPPALU VILLAGE,
ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN - 573201
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY TURUVEKERE RURAL POLICE STATION,
TUMKUR - 572101,
REPRESENTED BY
Digitally THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
signed by HIGH COURT BUILDING,
LAKSHMI T HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: BANGALORE-560001.
High Court
of Karnataka 2. SRI.KIRAN KUMAR
S/O SRI. MOHAN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O HORAPETE, THURUVEKERE TOWN,
TUMAKURU-572101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; R2-SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8075
CRL.A No. 2288 of 2023
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2023
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1580/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE TUMAKURU
2.ALLOW THIS APPEAL ENLARGING THE PETITIONER ON
REGULAR BAIL IN SPL. CASE NO.668/2023 (CR.NO.142/2023
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 324, 341, 302, 427,
435, 504, 506, 120B, 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSION COURT TUMKUR DISTRICT.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by accused No.6 against the
order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Court of III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Criminal
Misc.No.1580/2023, whereby the learned Sessions Judge
has rejected his bail petition preferred under Section 439
of Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned
High Court Government Pleader for State and perused the
material on record.
3. Respondent No.2 is served but unrepresented.
NC: 2024:KHC:8075
4. Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 7
for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148,
341, 324, 302, 120B, 427, 435, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC
and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act,
2015.
5. It is the case of prosecution that accused
persons and deceased Dilip as well as CWs.1, 3 to 6,
CWs.9 and 10 are friends. In an incident of assault on the
brother of CW.1 namely Ravi Kumar-CW.9, a case was
registered in Crime No.83/2023 against accused Nos.1 to
3, 6 and others. Hence, the accused were nurturing ill-will
against the deceased and his friends. They hatched a
conspiracy to commit the murder of Dilip and called the
deceased and others in the guise of compromising the
matter, on 03.06.2023 and went to the spot in Hundai car
bearing Registration No.KA-04-MC-2257 and a Maruthi
Ertiga Car bearing Registration No.KA-44-A-2275 carrying
deadly weapons. They formed an unlawful assembly
NC: 2024:KHC:8075
holding deadly weapons and waited for the deceased and
others near Kyamasandra to come for a compromise. At
about 11.00 p.m., when CWs.1, 3 to 6 and deceased came
on two wheelers, they were wrongfully restrained and
assaulted with the weapons. Dilip was assaulted on the
head, chest, back, limbs and other parts of the body with
longs and club. They set fire to the 3 two wheelers. Dilip
who was seriously injured was shifted to Adichunchanagiri
Hospital. He succumbed to the injuries on 08.06.2023.
6. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned
order has rejected the prayer for bail, on the ground that
there is a prima facie case made out against the appellant
and the offence alleged is serious and heinous in nature.
Further, if the accused is enlarged on bail, there is a threat
to the complainant and eye witnesses and there is chance
of tampering and hampering the prosecution witnesses
etc.
NC: 2024:KHC:8075
7. The learned counsel for appellant has
contended that the first informant is an eye witness, but
he has not named the appellant as one of the accused, in
the FIR. He has contended that while furnishing history
while admitting the deceased, the appellant's name is not
mentioned. He contends that appellant is innocent and he
has been falsely implicated in this case. He further
contends that similarly placed accused Nos.4 and 5 have
been enlarged on bail by this Court. He has therefore
sought to set aside the order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge and enlarge the appellant on bail.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader on the
other hand has opposed the prayer contending that CWs.3
to 7 are the eye witnesses and they have clearly stated
about the presence and participation of the appellant. He
contends that the offence committed by the appellant
along with other accused persons is heinous in nature and
therefore, he is not entitled for bail. He has accordingly
sought to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:8075
9. The complaint is lodged by one Kiran Kumar, on
the basis of which case was registered against accused
Nos.1 to 3 and others. He has stated that the offence is
committed by 7 to 8 persons who came in the car.
However, specific overt acts of assaulting the deceased are
against accused Nos.1 to 3. It is further alleged in the
complaint that all the accused set fire to the motorcycles
and thereafter, they left the spot in cars.
10. Learned High Court Government Pleader has
relied on the statements of CWs.3 to 7 recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. He contends that they have named all
the accused persons including the appellant herein. He
further contends that a long and clothes are recovered at
the instance of the appellant.
11. The learned counsel for appellant has drawn the
attention of the Court to the statements of the above
witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The
witnesses have stated that three persons alighted from a
NC: 2024:KHC:8075
Hundai car holding long and assaulted Dilip
indiscriminately with the said weapons.
12. A coordinate Bench of this Court while
considering the appeals preferred by accused Nos.4 and 5
has observed that after the incident injured Dilip was
admitted to Adichunchanagiri hospital on 04.06.2023 and
in the Register, history is mentioned as assault on
03.06.2023 at about 11.30 p.m. to 12.00 a.m. by Prasad
and Manjunath with iron long. Further it is observed that
in the complaint the names of only accused Nos.1 to 3 are
mentioned. In the further statement of CW.1 - Kiran
Kumar recorded on 08.06.2023 there is no mention of the
name of the appellant.
13. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are enlarged on bail in
criminal appeal No.2046/2023 dated 21.02.2024 and
criminal appeal No.114/2024 dated 08.02.2024. Appellant
is similarly placed. He is in judicial custody since
09.06.2023. Investigation is completed and charge sheet
is filed.
NC: 2024:KHC:8075
14. In the above facts and circumstances, the
appellant has made out sufficient ground to grant the
relief sought in this appeal. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
The order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Court of
III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in
Criminal Misc No.1580/2023 is set aside.
The appellant/accused No.6 in Special Case
No.668/2023 pending on the file of III Additional District
and Sessions Court, Tumkur District shall be enlarged on
bail, subject to following conditions:
i. He shall execute a personal bond
each in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh only) with two sureties for like sum.
ii. He shall not tamper the prosecution
witnesses/evidence either directly or
indirectly.
NC: 2024:KHC:8075
iii. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the trial Court, pending disposal, without prior
permission of the learned Sessions Judge.
iv. He shall furnish proof of their
residential address and shall inform the
I.O./Court, if there is any change in the
address.
iii. He shall be regular in attending the
trial proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HB
