Karnataka High Court
Sri. Gopal B.C vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1523
CRL.A No. 2312 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2312 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. GOPAL B.C.
(IN FIR ITS IS SHOWN AS GOPI)
S/O CHALUVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT: C/O RAMESH HOUSE
NEAR VEERABHADRESHWARA MATTA
4TH CROSS, RESIDENCY LAYOUT
ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 091.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI TEJAS N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE
BANGALORE - 560 096.
Digitally signed by (REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Location: HIGH HCK, BANGALORE - 01.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. PUSHPA
W/O LATE RAVI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT: OPP. TO SHIVA TEMPLE ROAD,
LAGGERE MAIN ROAD, LAGGERE
BENGALURU -560 058.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. N ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FO R1
R2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1523
CRL.A No. 2312 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 04.12.2023
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.No.11221/2023 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE
LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH-71), AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN
CR.No.154/2023 OF NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE, BENGALURU FOR
OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 302 R/W 149 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION
3(2)(v) OF SC AND ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 1989, WHICH IS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71), IN
SPL.C.NO.1752/2023 ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
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 04.12.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.11221/2023 by the LXX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereunder the bail petition of
this appellant-accused No.3 sought in respect of Crime
No.154/2023 of Nandini Layout Police Station registered for
offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302 r/w Section 149
of Indian Penal 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 and ST Act') came to be
rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:1523
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused
No.3, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice respondent No.2 -
complainant remained absent and unrepresented.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased-
Ravi and accused Nos. 1 and 2 had quarrelled while playing
cards during Ugadi festival. On 24.05.2023 at about 8.00
p.m. the deceased and accused persons gathered in a
birthday party of one Sri Krishnamurthy. After the party is
over, once again accused Nos.1 and 2 quarrelled with the
deceased-Ravi. After birthday party, after some time accused
made a phone call to the deceased-Ravi who picked him on
his bike to the spot at about 11.45 p.m. Accused Nos.1 and 2
started causing injury with a dagger and caused the various
injuries on various parts of the body of the victim Ravi and
caused his death. After investigation, charge sheet has been
filed against this appellant-accused No.3 and others for the
offence punishable under Section 120B, 149, 302 of IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act. The appellant-accused
No.3 who was in judicial custody filed
NC: 2024:KHC:1523
Crl.Misc.No.11221/2023 seeking bail and the same came to
be rejected by the impugned order dated 04.12.2023. The
said order is challenged in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.3
would contend that the alleged incident has taken place at
about 11.50 p.m. and complaint came to be filed at about
2.15 a.m. and there is delay in filing the complaint. The
Police took injured person to the Hospital immediately after
incident but, no case has been registered by the Police. He
contends that the complaint filed by the wife of the
deceased-Ravi is hit under Section 162 of Cr.P.C as the police
had information about the incident prior to filling the
complainant. He placed reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andra Pradesh
Vs Punati Ramulu and Others1. He further contends that
in the inquest mahazar, it is shown that the wife of the
deceased has last seen the deceased-Ravi but, as per
prosecution case CW-11 who is eye witness has last seen the
1994 Supp (1) SCC 590
NC: 2024:KHC:1523
deceased-Ravi. There is no recovery at the instance of this
appellant-accused No.3 except his blood stained cloths which
have been recovered after two days of his arrest. He
contends that cloths seized from this appellant-accused No.3
have not sent for examination to FSL. He further contends
that the weapon has been seized from the spot as per
remand application. He contends that accused Nos.6 to 8
have been granted bail therefore, this appellant-accused No.3
is entitled for grant of bail on parity ground. 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 would contend that the offence against this
appellant-accused No.3 is heinous offence punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. There is direct involvement of
this appellant-accused No.3 assaulting the deceased with
dagger and throwing stone on his chest. CW-11, 15, 20 and
21 are eye witnesses to the incident who have specifically
stated overtacts of this appellant-accused No.3 assaulting the
deceased with the dagger and throwing stones on his chest.
NC: 2024:KHC:1523
The doctor, who conducted post mortem examination on the
dead body of the deceased has noted 18 injuries found over
the dead body of the deceased and opined that death is due
to haemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple sharp force
injuries sustained. On perusal of the entire charge sheet
materials there is prima facie case against this appellant-
accused No.3 for offences alleged against him. Considering
said aspects, learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the
bail petition of this appellant-accused No.3. With this, she
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for appellant -
accused No.3 and learned HCGP for respondent- State, this
Court has gone through the impugned order and charge
sheet materials.
7. On perusal of column No.17 of the charge sheet,
the accused conspired to kill the deceased-Ravi and secured
him from his house on 24.05.2023 at about 11.00 p.m.
Accused No.2 had brought the dagger and accused No.5 took
the said dagger from accused No.2 and assaulted on the neck
NC: 2024:KHC:1523
of the deceased-Ravi and accused Nos.3 and 5 dragged the
deceased-Ravi and took him in front of Halli Ruchi Hotel.
There accused Nos.6 and 7 assaulted him with hands at that
time accused Nos. 1 and 2 held the deceased Ravi and
accused No.1 took the dagger form accused No.5 and
assaulted on stomach of the deceased -Ravi. This appellant-
accused No.3 took the said dagger and assaulted on the right
cheek and stabbed on his stomach and accused No.4 took the
said dagger and stabbed on the stomach of the deceased at
that time the deceased-Ravi fell down. Accused No.5
assaulted with the same dagger on the neck of the deceased-
Ravi at that time this appellant-accused No.3 took stone and
threw it on the chest of the deceased-Ravi. Thereafter,
accused No.2 also threw stone on his left side of the
stomach.
8. Considering the same, there is specific overtact
alleged against this appellant-accused No.3 assaulting the
deceased-Ravi with the dagger on his cheek and stomach and
also throwing the stone on his chest. The said incident has
NC: 2024:KHC:1523
been witnessed by CW-11, 15, 20 and 21 who have stated
specific overtact of this appellant/accused No.3 assaulting the
deceased-Ravi. The doctor, who conducted the post mortem
examination of the dead body of the deceased-Ravi has
noted that the deceased-Ravi has sustained 18 injuries and
opined that death is due to hemorrhage and shock as a result
of multiple sharp force injuries sustained. Considering the
above aspects, there is a prima facie case against this
appellant/accused No.3 for offences alleged against him. One
of the offence alleged against this appellant/accused No.3 is
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. If the
appellant-accused No.3 is granted bail there are chances of
tampering the prosecution witnesses. There are no serious
overtacts alleged against accused Nos.6 to 8 who have been
granted bail by this Court and there are serious overtacts
alleged against this appellant/accused No.3. Hence, this
appellant/accused No.3 is not entitled for granting of bail on
parity ground. Considering all these aspects, learned
Sessions/Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail petition
of this appellant-accused No.3. There are no grounds for
NC: 2024:KHC:1523
setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. Hence,
the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DSP
