Karnataka High Court
Mahesha @ Banka vs State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9395
CRL.A No. 1594 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1594 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MAHESHA @ BANKA,
S/O MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 45, HENNUR GOWDAR COLONY,
NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
BENGALURU - 560 033.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
STATE BY HENNUR P.S.,
RPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed BANGALORE - 560 001.
by V KRISHNA
Location: High
Court of 2. SMT. SUJATHA,
Karnataka W/O SHREDDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 956/B,
CHIKKANANJUNDAPPA LAYOUT,
RAMASWAMYPALYA,
KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 033.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYA, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9395
CRL.A No. 1594 of 2023
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
20.02.2023 PASSED BY HONBLE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (CCH-71), AT
BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.217/2022 AND ENLARGE APPELLANT
ON BAIL IN CR.NO.217/2021 NOW IN SPL.C.NO.217/2022 ,
FOR AN OFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 109, 302, 120(B),
201 R/W 34, 149 OF IPC, SEC. 25 OF ARMS ACT, SEC. 3(2)(5)
SC/ST POA ACT, 1989 OF PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE (CCH-71), AT BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred under Section 14(a)(2) of
the SC/ST Act to set aside the order dated 20.02.2023
passed by the Court of the LXX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge, at Bengaluru in Special
Case No.217/2022 and consequently to enlarge the
appellant/accused No.5 on bail.
NC: 2024:KHC:9395
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1-State and perused the material on record.
3. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant is served
but unrepresented.
4. FIR is registered against 5-6 unknown persons
for the offence punishable under section 143, 149, 302 r/w
149 of IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet is
filed against Accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offence under
Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 109, 302, 120B, 201 r/w 34
and 149 IPC, Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 and Section
3(2)(5) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989
5. In a nutshell, case of the prosecution is that on
account of previous enmity, all the accused entered into a
conspiracy to commit the murder of first informant's
husband by name Shreedhar and at the instigation of
accused No.3, on 13.11.2021 when the deceased was
proceeding in his car bearing registration No.KA-04-MT-
0288, they followed him in motorcycles armed with deadly
NC: 2024:KHC:9395
weapons like longs and choppers and waylaid his vehicle
near service road leading from Nagavara Junction to
Hennur Junction and committed his murder by assaulting
with the weapons they were carrying indiscriminately all
over his body.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has
contended that the FIR is registered against unknown
persons and according to the prosecution CWs 2 to 5 are
the eye witnesses, but all of them have turned hostile and
not supported the case of prosecution. He contends that
even the panch witnesses to the mahazar for recovery of
the weapons have also turned hostile. He contends that
the appellant is languishing in judicial custody for more
than 2 years 3 months. He is the sole bread earner of his
family consisting of wife, children and parents. He is ready
and willing to abide by any conditions. Accordingly, seeks
to allow the appeal and enlarge the appellant on bail.
7. Per-contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader contends that the offence committed is heinous in
NC: 2024:KHC:9395
nature, wherein, all the accused have committed brutal
murder of first informant's husband by assaulting him
indiscriminately all over his body with lethal weapons. He
contends that CW 2 to 5 are the eye witnesses and at the
instance of the appellant blood stained long and T shirt
have been recovered. He contends that the trial is in
progress and therefore, if the appellant is enlarged on bail,
he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and flee
from justice.
8. The first informant is the wife of the deceased. In
her complaint lodged on 13.11.2021, she has stated that
she was informed by some unknown persons about the
murder of her husband and immediately she went to the
spot and saw her husband lying dead in front of Coffee
Day on service road. During the course of investigation,
the statements of CW 2 to 5 were recorded. The appellant
was arrested on 15.11.2021 and at his instance blood
stained weapon and T shirt are recovered.
NC: 2024:KHC:9395
9. According to the prosecution one Rakshith and
others had committed the murder of one Harish, a cousin
of accused No.1. Deceased Shreedhar was associated with
Rakshith. He was claiming that accused No.1 to 3 will also
meet the same fate as Harish. Hence, the accused were
nursing ill will against him. They conspired with each other
to commit his murder and at the instigation of accused
No.3 all the accused followed the deceased who was
proceeding in his car, in their motor cycles armed with
deadly weapons like long and chopper and by assaulting
him indiscriminately, committed his murder.
10. As per the PM report the cause of death is on
account of multiple injuries. Deceased has sustained 18
antemortem injuries. The appellant was also armed with a
long. He has assaulted the deceased on his hand due to
which finger of the deceased was amputated. Blood
stained long and T shirt are recovered at the instance of
the appellant.
NC: 2024:KHC:9395
11. The Trial is in progress. Hostility of CW 2 to 5
who are examined as PW 2 to 5 itself is not a ground to
hold that the appellant is innocent of the alleged offence.
Since the trial is in progress, any observations made
touching the merits of the case may prejudice the trial.
There are other witnesses to be examined.
12. Considering the nature and gravity of the
offence, the incarceration undergone by the appellant is
not a ground to enlarge him on bail.
13. The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the
prayer for bail has observed that the punishment for
alleged offence is death or imprisonment for life.
Therefore, looking into the gravity of the offence, at this
stage, it may not be appropriate to release the accused on
bail and if he is released, his presence cannot be secured
for trial as he may abscond and tamper the prosecution
witnesses and also pose life threats to the witnesses and
commit similar offences, hence, the apprehension of the
prosecution are well found.
NC: 2024:KHC:9395
14. No grounds are made out to set aside the order
passed by the learned Sessions Judge and to enlarge the
appellant on bail.
Appeal is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VS
CT:SNN
