Karnataka High Court
Shri. Arjun @ Prashanth vs State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24338
CRL.A No. 2145 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 2118 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2145 OF 2023
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2118 OF 2023
IN CRL.A.No.2145/2023:
BETWEEN:
SHRI. ARJUN @ PRASHANTH
ARJUN NR @ PRASHANTH (A-4)
S/O NAGARAJACHARI
(AS PER CHARGE-SHEET)
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
GOWRIPURA VILLAGE
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI C H HANUMANTHARAYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI DHARANESHA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY JAGALURU P S
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SHRI PRAKASHA P
S/O PALAPPA P
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
GOWRIPURA VILLAGE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24338
CRL.A No. 2145 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 2118 of 2023
JAGALURU TALUQ
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R RANGASWAMY, HCGP FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S. 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (ACT)
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, AT
DAVANAGERE IN ITS SPECIAL CASE No.276/2023 ORDER
DATED 17.10.2023 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE
THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.No.7/2023 OF JAGALUR P.S.,
WHICH IS NOW PENDING FOR TRAIL ON THE FILE OF THE
HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT
DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 120B,
302, 201, 212, 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v-a) 3(2)(v) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ETC.,
IN CRL.A.No.2118/2023:
BETWEEN:
SHRI PRASHANTH KUMAR (A-12)
S/O SHANKARAPPA POLICE PATIL
(AS PER CHARGE-SHEET)
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
HANIVALA VILLAGE
GANGAVATHI TALUK
KOPPALS DISTRICT - 583 227.
...APPELANT
(BY SRI C H HANUMANTHARAYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI DHARANESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY JAGALURU P.S
REPRESENTED BY
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:24338
CRL.A No. 2145 of 2023
C/W CRL.A No. 2118 of 2023
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SHRI PRAKASHA P
S/O PALAPPA P
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
GOWRIPURA VILLAGE
JAGALURU TALUQ
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R RANGASWAMY, HCGP FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S. 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (ACT)
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, AT
DAVANAGERE IN ITS SPECIAL CASE No.276/2023 ORDER
DATED 17.10.2023 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE
THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.No.7/2023 OF JAGALURU P.S.,
WHICH IS NOW PENDING FOR TRAIL ON THE FILE OF THE
HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, AT
DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 120B,
302, 201, 212, 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v-a), 3(2)(v) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ETC.,
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Crl.A.No.2145/2023 is filed by accused No.4 and
Crl.A.No.2118/2023 is filed by accused No.6.
2. The appellants - accused Nos.4 and 6 sought for
setting aside the order dated 17.10.2023 passed in Special
NC: 2024:KHC:24338
Case No.276/2023 by the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Davanagere, whereunder, their bail
application sought in respect of Crime No.7/2023 of
Jagalur Police Station registered for the offences under
Sections 143, 147, 147, 120B, 302, 201 and 211 r/w
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') 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"), came to be rejected.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants - accused
Nos.4 and 6 and learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent No.1 - State. Inspite of service of notice,
respondent No.2 has remained absent and unrepresented.
4. Case of the prosecution is that; the deceased
Sri.Ramakrishna was a Social worker since two to three
years. He tried to bring awareness about the programmes
of Grama Panchayath namely, Grameen Udyog Khatri
Yojana and NAREGA Yojana. The appellant- accused No.1
NC: 2024:KHC:24338
who is working as a Panchayath Development Officer
alleged to have mis-utilized the funds meant for Grama
Panchayath work and the deceased has obtained the
records through R.T.I and informed the same to the
Higher Authorities of the appellant - accused No.1. The
Superior Officers of the appellant- accused No.1 kept him
under suspension. In order to wreak vengeance against
the deceased, the appellant - accused No.1 conspired with
the other accused to kill the deceased. In furtherance of
the said conspiracy, accused Nos.2 to 6 assaulted the
deceased with stone and machete and caused his death.
5. The appellants - accused Nos.4 and 6 who are in
judicial custody, filed the bail application in Special Case
No.276/2023 and the same came to be rejected by the
impugned order, which is challenged in this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants - accused Nos.4
and 6 would contend that the deceased was a rowdy
sheeter and he had several enemies. He contends that
accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 7 have been granted bail, out of
NC: 2024:KHC:24338
which accused Nos.1 and 3 have been granted bail by this
Court. He contends that the deceased was an aggressor
and he had abused accused Nos.2 and 4 and caught hold
accused No.4 and pushed him on the kadapa stone slab
and it was broken. At that time, to save him, accused
No.6 intervened and assaulted the deceased with broken
kadapa stone slab on his head, twice. The said act of
accused No.6 is in exercise of right of private defence for
accused No.4. He contends that the only eye witness to
the incident is CW25 who has stated the acts of the
deceased quarrelling with accused Nos.2 and 4 and
assaulting accused No.4. The name of accused No.6 is not
stated in the F.I.R. The said act comes under Section 300
of IPC as the alleged incident has taken place without
pre-meditation and in a sudden fight. In the postmortem
report, five injuries stated to be sustained by the deceased
are cut wounds and they are not the incised or chopped
wounds. The deceased was a lawless person and he had
several enemies as he used to quarrel with everybody in
the village. The appellants - accused Nos.4 and 6 are in
NC: 2024:KHC:24338
judicial custody since 08.01.2023 and as the charge sheet
is filed, they are not required for the custodial
interrogation. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal
and grant bail to the appellants - accused Nos.4 and 6.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent No.1 - State would contend that the
deceased was a social worker and he had informed about
mis-utilization of funds by accused No.1 to his Higher
Authorities and therefore, accused No.1 conspired with the
other accused and in furtherance of the said conspiracy,
accused Nos.2 to 6 assaulted the deceased and committed
his murder. The appellant - accused No.4 is the
son-in-law of accused No.1. The charge sheet, Column
No.17 would indicate that accused No.2 has assaulted the
deceased. The statement of the eye witness namely
CW-25 has also been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C
and in the test identification parade, he has identified
these appellants as the persons who assaulted the
deceased. There are other eye witnesses namely, CWs.28
NC: 2024:KHC:24338
to 30. There is recovery of blood stained cloths and the
F.S.L report would indicate the blood stains over the cloths
and machete. The act of these appellants is a pre-
planned murder. The postmortem report would indicate
five cut injuries caused on the head of the deceased. If
the appellants - accused Nos.4 and 6 are granted bail,
there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses. With this,
he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has
perused the impugned order and the charge sheet records.
9. On perusal of Column No.17 of the charge sheet, it
would indicate that the deceased was inside the Dabha
in which CW25 was working. When accused Nos.4 and 6
entered the Dabha keeping outside the machete near the
Beeda shop, at that time, the deceased started quarrelling
with accused No.4 and tried to assault him and at that
time, accused Nos.2 and 3 went inside the Dabha and
accused No.2 asked the deceased as to why he is doing so
and causing trouble to them. At that time, the deceased
NC: 2024:KHC:24338
pushed accused No.2 and he fell down. At that time,
accused No.4 raised his hand to assault the deceased and
the deceased held the neck of accused No.4 and lifted him
and thrown him on the kadapa stone slab. At that time,
accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 assaulted the deceased with
hands and legs. At that time, the deceased was holding
the neck of accused No.4 and pulling him and therefore,
accused No.6 took a piece of broken kadapa slab stone
and assaulted with the same on the back side of the head
of the deceased and therefore, the deceased left accused
No.4 and accused No.6 again assaulted the deceased on
the back side of his head and the deceased fell down and
accused No.4 went out of the Dabha and took machete
and came back and assaulted the deceased with machete,
on his head. Considering the said accusation, it is the
deceased who started first quarrelling with accused No.4
and assaulted and thrown him on the kadapa stone slab.
The documents produced would indicate that the deceased
was a rowdy sheeter. The postmortem report does not
indicate any incised or chopped wounds to suggest that
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24338
the injuries have been caused with the machete. The
doctor who conducted the postmortem examination over
the dead body of the deceased has opined that the death
was due to severe hemorrhagic shock as a result of
secondary lethal injuries sustained to the brain. Whether
the appellants had conspired with accused No.1 to kill the
deceased and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, they
assaulted and killed the deceased is a matter of trial. The
appellants - accused Nos.4 and 6 are in judicial custody
since 08.01.2023 and as the charge sheet is filed, they are
not required for custodial interrogation. The apprehension
of the prosecution that if the appellants - accused Nos.4
and 6 are granted bail, there is a threat to the prosecution
witnesses, can be met with, by imposing stringent
conditions. The appellants - accused Nos.4 and 6 have
made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order
and grant of bail. In the result, the following;
ORDER
Both the appeals are allowed. The impugned order
dated 17.10.2023 passed in Special Case No.276/2023 by
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24338
the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere
is set-aside. The appellants - accused Nos.4 and 6 are
granted bail in a Special Case No.276/2023 (Crime
No.7/2023 of Jagalur Police Station), pending on the file of
the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere,
subject to the following conditions;
(i) The appellants-accused Nos.4 and 6 shall
execute a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each,
with two sureties for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
(ii) The appellants-accused Nos.4 and 6 shall not
threaten the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The appellants-accused Nos.4 and 6 shall
appear before the Trial Court, on all the dates
of hearing, unless exempted and co-operate
in speedy disposal of the case.
(iv) The appellants-accused Nos.4 and 6 shall not
commit any similar offence during the
pendency of the case registered against them.
(v) The appellants-accused Nos.4 and 6 shall
mark their attendance on the second Sunday
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24338
of every month, in Jagalur Police Station
between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm, till the
disposal of the case registered against them.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH
