Karnataka High Court
Joman V Geroge vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46523
CRL.A No.835 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No.1075 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.835 OF 2024 (U/S 14(A) (2))
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1075 OF 2024 (U/S 14(A) (2))
IN CRL.A NO.835/2024:
BETWEEN:
K.R. RAJESH @ RAJI @ KUNDURU RAJI
(AS MENTIONED IN THE CHARGESHEET)
S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
AGE. 35 YEARS, R/AT KUNDURU,
TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572130.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KYATHASANDRA P.S.
REP. BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SMT. SAVITHA W/O LATE RAVI KUMAR H.R.
AGE. 33 YEARS, NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE,
Digitally
signed by
DEVARAYANAPATNA MAIN ROAD,
BATAWADI, TUMKURU-572104.
MANJANNA
E
Location:
MANJANNA High Court of
E Karnataka,
Dharwad
Bench
Date:
2024.11.23
10:23:41
+0530
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. S.P.P. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT 1989, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
06.04.2024 IN SPL.C.C.NO.444/2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-1) AND ENLARGE
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO. 222/2018 OF
KYATHASANDRA P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 143, 147, 148,
120(B), 212, 302, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(2)(V) OF
SC/ST(POA) ACT 1989 AND SEC.3(1)(I),(2),(3)(4) OF KCOCA, 2000
ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46523
CRL.A No.835 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No.1075 of 2024
IN CRL.A NO.1075/2024:
BETWEEN:
JOMAN V. GEROGE S/O GEORGE CHERIAN
AGE. 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT 273, 6TH CROSS,
OPP: AMOGHA HOTEL, LAGGARE MAIN ROAD,
PARVATHI NAGARA, BENGALURU.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUDHANVA D.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KYATHASANDRA P.S.
REP. BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. SMT. SAVITHA W/O LATE RAVI KUMAR H.R.
AGE. 33 YEARS, NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE,
DEVARAYAPATNA MAIN ROAD,
BATAWADI, TUMKURU-572104.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. S.P.P. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION
OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 06.04.2024 IN SPL.C.C.NO.444/2019 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU(CCH-1) AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
NO.9 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.222/2018 OF KYATHASANDRA P.S
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 212, 302, 201
R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989
AND SEC.3(1)(I)(2)(3)(4) OF KCOCA ACT,2000 ON SUCH TERMS
AND CONDITIONS IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE & ETC.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:46523
CRL.A No.835 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No.1075 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
These two appeals arise from order dated
06.04.2024 in Spl. C.C. No. 444/2019 on the bail
applications filed by accused 4 and 9. The Special Court
rejected their bail applications.
2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant in Crl. A. No. 835/2024, Sri Sudhanva D.S,
learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 1075/2024
and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Addl. SPP for the State.
3. In connection with the incident that occurred on
30.09.2018 at 8.30 a.m. in front of a tea-shop located in
the service road of Batawadi, NH-48, Tumkur, these two
appellants are facing trial along with other accused.
Ravikumar was the person who was killed in the incident.
Though several grounds have been urged in the appeal
memo, they cannot be considered. According to the
appellants, because many witnesses so far examined have
turned hostile, it cannot be said that prosecution case is
NC: 2024:KHC:46523
worth believable. In this regard it is to be stated that
merely because some of the witnesses turned hostile, it
does not mean that the Court cannot rely upon the
testimonies of the investigating officers, if the
investigation appears to be properly made. Anyway it is
for the trial court to appreciate the evidence. Therefore
these grounds do not entitle the appellants to claim bail.
However it is to be noted that accused no.8 was admitted
to bail by this court in Crl. A. No. 205/2023. One of the
grounds urged in the appeal is that accused 4 and 9 are
entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
4. Smt. Rashmi Jadhav submits that parity cannot be
extended to these two appellants because while allowing
Crl. A. No. 205/2023 it was observed by this Court that
accused no.8 was not identified by the witnesses during
identification parade. That was the main reason for
granting bail to accused no.8, but so far as appellants are
concerned they have been identified. This shows that they
were involved in killing Ravikumar. Learned counsel for
NC: 2024:KHC:46523
the appellants replied that even with respect to these two
appeals all the witnesses did not identify and only some of
the witnesses identified them during test identification
parade.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants also submit that
there are 225 witnesses and so far 18 witnesses have
been examined. Appellants are in judicial custody for
more than 6 years. Delay in the trial may be considered
for enlarging the appellants on bail.
6. It is true that while deciding Crl. A. No. 205/2023 the
identification of accused no.8 was doubted because the
witnesses knew about them before test identification
parade was held and therefore test identification parade
was doubted. Be that as it may, if the charge sheet is
seen the overt acts attributed to accused 4 and 9 are
same as the overt acts attributed to accused no.8 who has
been granted bail. If accused no.8 is on bail already, it is
not justifiable if bail is not granted to accused 4 and 9.
The Addl. SPP expresses apprehension that the witnesses
NC: 2024:KHC:46523
are likely to be threatened because already CW3 was killed
at the instance of accused 1 and 3. The apprehension
expressed by the Addl. SPP cannot be ignored but at the
same time if these appellants are entitled to claim parity,
it cannot be just brushed aside. They are in jail for the
last six years. The appellants may be admitted to bail by
subjecting them to stringent conditions. Therefore the
following order:
ORDER
The order dated 06.04.2024 in Spl. C.C. No.
444/2019 on the file of The Principal City Civil and
Sessions Judge at Bengaluru, is set aside. The
applications filed by the appellants u/S 439 Cr.P.C. are
allowed. Accused 4 and 9 are ordered to be released on
bail on the following conditions;
(1) Each of accused 4 and 9 shall execute a bond for
Rs. 2,00,000/- and provide two sureties to the
likesum for the satisfaction of the trial court;
NC: 2024:KHC:46523
(2) Each of them shall provide cash security of
Rs.1,00,000/-;
(3) They shall not threaten the witnesses and tamper
with evidence;
(4) They shall regularly appear before the trial court
till trial is concluded;
(5) Till trial is concluded they shall not enter Tumkur
District. If it is found that they have entered
Tumkur city or any part of Tumkur District
stealthily, this order stands cancelled
automatically;
(6) They shall mark their attendance at Halsoor Gate
Police Station once in a week preferably on a
Sunday between 9 am and 12 noon till trial is
concluded;
(7) They shall not get involved in any crime in future;
NC: 2024:KHC:46523
(8) Registration of any FIR against accused 4 and 9
will be viewed seriously;
(9) The deposit of cash security is condition precedent
for release of accused on bail.
Sd/-
(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
JUDGE
BVV
