Karnataka High Court
Anand V vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1043
CRL.A No. 2041 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2041 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
ANAND V.
S/O LATE VELAYAPPAN
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O No.4, 19TH CROSS
KAGGADASAPURA
C V RAMAN NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 093.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PAVAN KUMAR G, ADVOCATE
SMT. N ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA AND:
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
BY MAHADEVAPURA P S
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. NAYANAKUMAR
S/O SHANTHAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/O No.52, BEHIND THE ANJANEYA TEMPLE
RANGANATHA LAYOUT
MAHADEVAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 048.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANDEEP C. T, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1043
CRL.A No. 2041 of 2023
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2023
IN CRL.MISC.No.9406/2023 (CR.No.208/2023) ON THE FILE OF
LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, (CCH-71), BENGALURU AND ENLARGE THE
APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPL.C.No.1897/2023 (CR.No.208/2023)
ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-71) FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201, 120B, R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused No.8
praying to set-aside the order dated 11.10.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.9406/2023, by the LXX Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru,
whereunder the bail application of this appellant-accused
No.8 sought in respect of Crime No.208/2023 of
Mahadevapura Police Station registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) r/w
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Sections 3(1)(s),
3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the
NC: 2024:KHC:1043
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
short hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act"), came to
be rejected.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellant-accused No.8, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1-State.
3. Case of the prosecution is that; the complaint came
to be filed stating that, on 25.05.2023 at about 9.00 p.m.,
when the complainant and his friend deceased
Sri.Renukumar were going in two wheeler near Aviva
Gym, one Sri.Kishore, the Sri.Prashanth @ Chotu and his
two friends came near him and started to assault the
deceased with long choppers and caused bleeding injuries
to the deceased and the deceased fell down and they ran
away from the spot. The deceased was shifted to the
hospital, but, he succumbed to the injuries. After
investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the
offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) r/w Section
NC: 2024:KHC:1043
34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST Act.
4. This appellant has been arraigned as accused No.8.
The accusation in the charge sheet is that the appellant -
accused No.8 conspired with accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7
to kill the deceased. It is further alleged that the deceased
who was earlier an associate of accused No.4
subsequently, intended to become a Don in the area and
there were galatas between accused No.4 and the
deceased and therefore, accused No.4 conspired with
accused Nos.1 to 3 and this appellant-accused No.8
to kill the deceased, wherein this appellant-accused No.8
has agreed to support accused No.4. In furtherance of
the said conspiracy, accused No.2 who was moving on
his two wheeler with the complainant and accused
Nos.1 to 3 assaulted the deceased with long choppers and
caused severe injuries and the deceased succumbed to the
injuries in the hospital. This appellant-accused No.8 came
to be arrested on 01.06.2023 and he is in judicial custody.
NC: 2024:KHC:1043
The appellant-accused No.8 filed Crl.Misc.No.9406/2023
and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order
dated 11.10.2023, which is challenged in this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.8
would contend that the allegation against this appellant-
accused No.8 is only a conspiracy with the other accused
to kill the deceased. This appellant-accused has been
arrested only on the voluntary statement of the other
accused. Except the voluntary statement of the appellant-
accused No.8 and seizure of mobile phone, there is no
material against him. Accused No.5 who is similarly placed
to that of this appellant-accused No.8 has been granted
bail by this Court and therefore, the appellant-accused
No.8 is entitled for grant of bail. Without considering
these aspects, the learned Special Judge has passed the
impugned order which requires interference by this Court.
With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to
the appellant-accused No.8.
NC: 2024:KHC:1043
6. Per Contra, learned High Court Government would
contend that the offences alleged against this appellant-
accused No.8 are heinous offences punishable with death
or imprisonment for life. This appellant-accused No.8 is
the main person behind the incident and he has supported
the other accused persons to kill the deceased. There is
recovery of mobile phone from this appellant-accused
No.8. The postmortem report reveals 25 injuries on the
dead body of the deceased and the doctor has opined that
the death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of
the injuries sustained. If the appellant-accused No.8 is
granted bail, there is threat to the prosecution witnesses.
This appellant-accused No.8 conspired with the other
accused persons to kill the deceased. With this, he prayed
to dismiss the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would contend
that the application filed by respondent No.2 under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C came to be allowed and the Trial Court
has ordered further investigation in the matter. The Trial
NC: 2024:KHC:1043
Court has ordered C.I.D to take up further investigation
and report is awaited. He further submits that there is
involvement of the Police Officer and the Corporator in the
alleged murder of the deceased Sri.Renukumar. The said
aspect is revealed in the statement of accused No.4. As
further investigation is in progress, if the appellant-
accused No.8 is granted bail, there are chances of he
hampering the investigation and tampering the
prosecution witnesses. He contends that the charge sheet
which is already filed is incomplete and the matter
requires further investigation. He further contends that
there is a larger conspiracy in the murder of
Sri.Renukumar. He further submits that the appellant-
accused No.8 is not entitled for grant of bail on the ground
of parity, as he is not similarly placed to that of accused
No.5, who has been granted bail.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 places reliance
on the following decisions;
NC: 2024:KHC:1043
(i) Mahadev Meena Vs. Praveen Rathore and
Another - (2021) 17 SCC 788.
(ii) Chaman Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Another
- (2004) 7 SCC 525.
(iii) Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan
Singh and Others - (2002) 3 SCC 598.
(iv) Almas Pasha Vs. The State of Karnataka -
Crl.P No.11041/2023.
(v) Mohd. Khalid Vs. State of W.B. - (2002) 7
SCC 334.
9. He further contends that considering the gravity of
the offences, involvement of this appellant-accused No.8,
the Sessions Judge has rightly rejected his bail petition.
With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-
accused No.8, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1-State, this Court has perused the impugned order,
NC: 2024:KHC:1043
charge sheets material and the other documents produced
by respondent No.2.
11. There is no motive alleged against this appellant-
accused No.8. The appellant-accused No.8 was not present
at the spot, at the time of incident. The allegation of
assault on the deceased is by accused Nos.1 to 3. The
only allegation against this appellant-accused No.8 is that
he has conspired with accused Nos.1 to 4 and agreed to
support them. Even though the mobile phone of this
appellant-accused No.8 has been recovered, no C.D.R
have been collected. The appellant-accused No.8 is in
judicial custody since 02.06.2023. As the charge sheet is
filed, this appellant-accused No.8 is not required for the
custodial interrogation. The apprehension of the counsel
for respondent No.2 that, if the appellant-accused No.8 is
granted bail, there are chances of he hampering the
investigation and tampering the witnesses. The appellant-
accused No.8 has made out grounds for setting aside the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1043
impugned order and grant of bail. In the result, the
following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
11.10.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.9406/2023 by the LXX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Bengaluru, is set aside. The bail petition is allowed. The
appellant-accused No.8 is ordered to be released on bail in
Crime No.208/2023 of Mahadevapura Police Station,
subject to following conditions:
(i) The appellant-accused No.8 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
jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The appellant-accused No.8 shall not threaten
the complainant or tamper the prosecution
witnesses.
(iii) The appellant-accused No.8 shall co-operate
with the Investigating Agency in further
investigation.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1043
(iv) The appellant-accused No.8 shall appear
before the Trial Court on all the dates of
hearing, unless exempted and co-operate for
speedy disposal of the case.
(v) The appellant-accused No.8 shall not commit
any offence during the pendency of the case
registered against him.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH
