Karnataka High Court
Sri Naveen @ Punith K vs State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29594
CRL.A No. 1050 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
Sri Naveen @ Punith K
S/o Krishnappa,
Aged 35 years,
Residing At No.266, 2nd Main,
1st Cross, Near Swami Vivekananda School,
Krishnaiahna Palya, Indiranagar Post,
Bengaluru - 560 039.
...Appellant
(By Sri M. Devaraja, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
By the Station House Officer,
Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru City
Digitally
signed by Represented by HCGP,
VEERENDRA
KUMAR K M Office at High Court Building
Location: Bengaluru - 560001.
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. Smt. Subbamma
W/o Late Srinivas
Aged 53 years,
Residing Near Muneshwara Temple,
Krishnaiahna Palya,
Byappanahalli,
Indiranagar Post,
Bengaluru - 560039.
...Respondents
(By Smt. R.Sowmya, HCGP for R-1;
R2 - served - unrepresented)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29594
CRL.A No. 1050 of 2024
This Criminal Appeal is filed u/s.14(A)(2) of SC/ST POA
Act, praying to set aside the order dated 24.04.2024 and
enlarge him on bail in so far canceling the bail of the appellant
in Spl.C.C.No.824/2021, Cr.No.123/2021, registered at
Ramamurthy Nagar P.S. for the offence punishable under
Section 120(B), 302 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 25 of ARMS Act
and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act pending on the file of the
LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge,
Bengaluru(CCH-71).
This Criminal Appeal, coming on for admission, this day,
judgment was delivered therein as under:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is an appeal under section 14-A (2) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 ['SC/ST (POA) Act' for short] challenging the order dated
24.4.2024 in Spl.C.No.824/2021 on the file of LXX Addl. City
Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-
71).
2. Heard Sri. M. Devaraja, learned counsel for the
appellant and Smt. Sowmya, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 is served,
but she has not entered appearance either personally or
through an advocate.
NC: 2024:KHC:29594
3. By order dated 10.01.2022 in Crl.A.No.1445/2021, this
court granted bail to accused no.5 and 7 in Spl.C.No.824/2021
on the file of LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71). Thereafter they were
released on bail. It appears that on 18.3.2024, advocate for
the complainant i.e., respondent no.2 in this appeal brought to
the notice of the trial court that there was life threat to
respondent no.2. The learned Judge of the trial court called for
report from the concerned police who appears to have recorded
the statement of respondent no.2 - Subbamma and submitted
the same to the court. Based on the statement, it appears that
the trial court judge appears to have passed the impugned
order.
4. No doubt, one of the conditions imposed at the time of
granting bail is that the accused should not threaten the
witness and tamper the evidence and if this condition is
violated it will be viewed seriously for cancellation of bail. But
before exercising the power of cancellation of bail, the court
must be fully satisfied that there is real threat to the witnesses.
The court must be satisfied further that the threat to a witness
is really genuine, and not vindictive to see that bail is cancelled.
NC: 2024:KHC:29594
If the order sheet maintained in Spl.C.No.824/2021 is seen, it
becomes very clear that respondent no.2 herein was examined
as PW.1 on 14.8.2023 and she was further examined on
4.11.2023. In the order sheet dated 14.8.2023, it is recorded
that the appellant herein i.e., accused no.5 was directed to
surrender before the court for violation of bail condition. It is
not clear that whether he surrendered before the court or not,
but the inference that can be drawn is that the appellant was
regularly appearing before the court and his presence is noted.
That means his bail was not cancelled and as has been
submitted by Sri. M. Deveraja, he might have been warned by
the trial court. Then on 18.3.2024, the counsel for the
complainant i.e., respondent no.2 made a submission that
respondent no.2 was facing life threat. Pursuant to this
submission, the trial court directed the investigating officer to
submit a report based on which the impugned order has been
passed.
5. From the above it can be stated that on 18.3.2024, the
counsel for respondent no.2 just made a submission that there
was a life threat to respondent no.2, he did not take the name
of any of the accused who might have given life threat to
NC: 2024:KHC:29594
respondent no.2. If the examination of PW1 was over by
04.11.2023, the trial court, after submission was made by the
counsel for respondent no.2 should have atleast made an
enquiry in the open court itself as to from which accused there
was life threat to respondent no.2. It is pertinent to mention
here that order dated 27.3.2024 discloses that respondent no.2
being the complainant was present in the court and made a
submission that she was getting threats on behalf of accused
no.1. She did not take the name of the appellant - accused
no.5 that time. Now if the statement of respondent no.2
recorded on 26.3.2024 is seen, what appears is that she was
getting threats before she came to court, probably when she
was summoned to court for giving evidence. Once her
examination was over, if she made a complaint of threat, the
trial court should have been slow in entertaining the complaint
about life threat while taking a decision to cancel the bail. If the
order sheet dated 27.3.2023 is seen, the life threat might have
been on behalf of accused no.1, and not accused no.5.
Therefore the impugned order is not sustainable as it lacks
application of mind. Once the bail is granted, the court must
be satisfied about the genuineness of the complaint against the
NC: 2024:KHC:29594
particular accused for violation of the bail conditions or
otherwise it should not proceed to cancel the bail. In this case
accused no.5 appeared on all the dates of hearing. In this view
of the matter the impugned order is not sustainable. Therefore
it is set aside and the bail granted to him on earlier occasion is
revived. The bail bonds executed by him earlier will hold good.
Sd/-
(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
JUDGE
sd
