Karnataka High Court
Sri Bharath Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:769
CRL.A No. 2022 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2022 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI BHARATH GOWDA,
S/O JAGANNATH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HANIYUR VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA H V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAJANUKUNTE POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed by HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
BANGALORE.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. SRI VENKATESH
S/O YANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HUNASAMARANAHALLI,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
3. SMT MADHU SHREE,
S/O RAMAIAHA,
R/AT CHALLAHALLI VILLAGE,
HESARUGHATTA HOBLI,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:769
CRL.A No. 2022 of 2023
YALAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R-1,
SRI VIKAS M., ADVOCATE FOR R-2-ABSENT
SRI VINAY SHREYAS K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S .14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2023
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1948/2023 ON THE FILE OF II
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND THEREBY RELEASE THE
APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPL.C.C.NO.957/2023 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN CR.NO.100/2023 IN
RAJANUKUNTE P.S, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
279,337,338,304A,304 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(5) OF SC/ST
ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by appellant-accused No.1
praying to set aside the order dated 22.09.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.1948/2023 by the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru,
whereunder the bail petition of this appellant-accused
No.1 sought in respect of crime No.100/2023 of
Rajanukunte Police Station for the offence punishable
under Sections 304, 304A, 337, 338, 279 of Indian Penal
NC: 2024:KHC:769
Code (for short hereinafter referred to as `IPC') and
Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter
referred to as `SC & ST Act'), came to be rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for appellant-accused
No.1, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned
HCGP for respondent No.1-State. None appeared for
respondent No.2.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on
11.05.2023 at about 4.45 a.m. deceased Nagaraju,
deceased Ramaiah and one Gopal(CW-3) were proceeding
on bike KA-50 EB-7387 and when they were near
Rajankunte at that time this appellant-accused
No.1/Bharath drove his Shift Car KA-04 MO-5461 in rash
and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle and
as result deceased Nagaraju and deceased Ramaiah
sustained injuries and died on the spot and Sri Gopal
sustained injuries. It is alleged that this appellant-accused
No.1/Bharath drove his vehicle under intoxication and
NC: 2024:KHC:769
committed offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A,
304 of IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act. This appellant-
accused No.1/Bharath came to be arrested on 12.05.2023
and he is in judicial custody. The appellant-accused No.1
filed Crl.Misc.No.1948/2023 seeking bail and the same
came to be rejected by the impugned order dated
22.09.2023. The said order is challenged in this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1
would that in olumn No.17 of the charge sheet there is no
allegation of any intentional act of this appellant-accused
No.1 dashing his car to the bike of deceased. He contends
that alleged act is an accident and that act attracts offence
under Section 304A of IPC. He further contends that
offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC is not
attracted. As charge sheet is filed this appellant-accused
No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation. Without
considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Court/
Special 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.1.
NC: 2024:KHC:769
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for
respondent No.3 both submits that this appellant-accused
No.1 is rowdy sheeter and he intentionally drove his car in
rash and negligent manner and went on extreme right side
and dashed the bike on which deceased Nagaraju,
deceased Ramaiah and Gopal (CW-3) were traveling and
caused death of Nagaraju and Ramaiah. There was a
previous enmity between this appellant-accused No.1 and
deceased persons. Considering the said aspects learned
Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail petition of this
appellant-accused No.1. With this, they prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard learned counsels for parties, this
Court has gone through the impugned order and charge
sheet materials.
8. Accident has taken place on 11.05.2023 at
about 4.30 a.m. This appellant-accused No.1 was driving
Shift Car KA-04-MO-5461 and dashed to the bike on which
deceased Nagaraju, deceased Ramaiah and CW-3/Gopal
NC: 2024:KHC:769
were traveling. As per column No.17 of the charge sheet
this appellant-accused No.1 was under intoxication and he
drove his car in rash and negligent manner and went on
extreme right side and dashed to the bike and caused
injuries to CW-3 and death of deceased persons. There is
no allegation of intentional causing death of deceased
persons. Whether offence punishable under Section 304
of IPC is attracted or not is matter of Trial. Merely because
the appellant-accused No.1 is rowdy sheeter is not reason
for rejection of his bail petition. As the charge sheet is
filed, appellant-accused No.1 is not required for custodial
interrogation. Without considering all these aspects
learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order
which requires interference by this Court.
In the result, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The impugned order dated 22.09.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.1948/2023 by the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is set
NC: 2024:KHC:769
aside. The bail petition of appellant-accused No.1 stands
allowed. Appellant-accused No.1 is ordered to be released
on bail in crime No.100/2023 of Rajanukunte Police
Station subject to the following conditions:
i. Appellant-accused No.1 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.
ii. Appellant-accused No.1 shall not
tamper the prosecution witnesses.
iii. Appellant-accused No.1 shall attend
the Court on all dates of hearing unless
exempted and cooperate in speedy
disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DSP
