Karnataka High Court
Lokesh. B. S vs State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43036
CRL.A No. 1475 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1475 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
LOKESH. B. S.
S/O SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDENT OF BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 121.
PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT
No.22, SUVARNA NAGAR
NEAR SIDDARTHA COTARY
DODDABIDARAKALLU
NAGASANDRA BANGALORE NORTH
BENGALURU - 560 073.
ALSO NEW RESIDING AT
NEAR K .R .B PETROL BUNK
Digitally signed by
ANJINAPURA, J P NAGARA
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
9TH STAND, BANGALORE - 560 078.
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI MOHAMED UMMAR FAROOQ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KORATAGERE POLICE
REP BY S P P
HIGH COURT CAMPUS
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43036
CRL.A No. 1475 of 2024
2. HANUMANTHARAYA
S/O LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT DURGENAHLLY VILLAGE
THUBGERE HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT - 561 203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED. UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.05.2023 PASSED IN
C.MISC.NO.353/2023 BY HON'BLE 3RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT TUMKUR AND ENLARGE APPELLANT
ON BAI IN SPL.C.C.No.262/2022 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by appellant - accused No. 1
praying to set aside the order dated 04.05.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc. No. 353/2023 by the III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, whereunder the bail
application of appellant - accused No. 2 sought in respect
of crime No. 297/2022 of Koratagere Police Station
NC: 2024:KHC:43036
registered for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201,
109 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of
Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities
Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the SC ST Act) came
to be rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for appellant - accused
No. 1 and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 - State.
Inspite of service of notice respondent No. 2 remained
absent and unrepresented.
3. As per the charge sheet case of the prosecution
is that accused No.5 - wife of the deceased Sri. Suresh
had an illicit relationship with accused No.1. As a result of
that there was mis-understanding between the deceased
with accused No.5. Due to ill treatment by the deceased,
accused No.5 had been to her relative's house who is none
other than accused No.6 - Smt. Channamma and started
residing in Nayakara Pete village. In that house also, the
deceased Sri. Suresh picked up quarrel with accused No.5.
Due to ill treatment by the deceased Sri. Suresh, both
accused Nos. 5 and 6 informed accused No.1 to commit
NC: 2024:KHC:43036
the murder of Sri. Suresh, agreeing to pay him
Rs.20,000/-. At the instigation of accused No.1, on
28.11.2022, accused Nos. 2 to 4 received a sum of
Rs.5,000/- from accused No. 5. On the same day, at
about 04.30 pm., accused No. 1 in his Autorickshaw along
with accused No. 2 had been to Tubugere village and took
up the deceased Sri. Suresh in his Autorickshaw, then
went to bye-pass road on Madhugiri at 09.40 pm. By that
time, accused Nos. 3 and 4 came there on their two
wheeler. All of them had alcohol at Madhugiri Wines and
all of them along with the deceased Sri. Suresh had been
to the vacant place belonging to one Jodidar Rajanna.
Accused Nos. 1 to 4 made the deceased Sri. Suresh to
sleep in the Autorickshaw and also pulled his head out side
the Autorickshaw. Immediately, accused No. 2 kicked
with leg on his face and accused No. 3 squeezed the neck
of the deceased Sri. Suresh with an intention to commit
his murder. After death of the deceased Sri. Suresh,
accused Nos. 1 to 3 shifted the dead body of the deceased
to the land belonging to Sri. Krishnamurthy - (CW-8) at
NC: 2024:KHC:43036
Basavanahalli village and cremated the dead body in that
land. It is the further case of the prosecution that accused
Nos. 1 to 4 after committing the murder of Sri. Suresh,
took the dead body to the house of accused No. 5 and
shown the dead body to her. Accused No. 5 provided a
window curtain to cover the dead body and one spade to
burry the dead body.
4. Appellant - accused No. 1 came to be arrested
on 02.12.2022 and he is in judicial custody. The appellant
- accused No. 1 had filed bail application and the same
came to be rejected by the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.
1 would contend that a case has been registered on the
suo motu complaint of the Police Sub-Inspector and the
intimation given by C.W.8. C.W.8 is stated to have
received phone call from accused No. 1 who had told him
regarding the murder. The entire case of the prosecution is
based on circumstantial evidence. Accused Nos. 2, 3, 5
and 6 have already been granted bail and therefore,
appellant - accused No.1 is entitled for grant of bail on
NC: 2024:KHC:43036
the ground of parity. Except recovery of Autorickshaw and
two mobile phones there are no incriminating evidence
against this appellant - accused No. 1. On these grounds
he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to appellant -
accused No. 1.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for
respondent No. 1 - State would contend that this
appellant - accused No. 1 is the main person who
conspired with the other accused to kill the deceased as he
was coming in the way of his illicit relationship with
accused No. 5. Charge sheet material show prima facie
case for the offence alleged against him. If appellant -
accused No. 1 is granted bail there is threat to
complainant and other prosecution witnesses. Considering
all these aspects learned sessions Judge has rightly
rejected the bail application filed by this appellant -
accused No. 1. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
this Court has perused the impugned order and charge
sheet material.
NC: 2024:KHC:43036
8. As per the charge sheet the main accusation of
killing the deceased by throttling is against accused Nos. 2
and 3. Dead body of the deceased Sri. Suresh has been
exhumed from the spot shown by the accused persons.
There are no eye witnesses to the incident. Case of the
prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The
prosecution has to establish each of the circumstances to
establish the guilt of the accused persons. As charge sheet
is filed, the appellant - accused No. 1 is not required for
custodial interrogation. Without considering all these
aspects learned Sessions Judge committed an error in
passing the impugned order which requires interference by
this Court. The appellant - accused No. 1 has made out
grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of
bail.
9. In the result, the following
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
04.05.2023 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 353/2023 by the III
NC: 2024:KHC:43036
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru,
(pending in Spl.CC. No. 262/2023) subject to the following
conditions.
i. The appellant - accused No.1 shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one
surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
ii. The appellant - accused No. 1 shall attend the
Court on all dates of hearing, unless exempted,
and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.
iii. The appellant - accused No.1 shall not threaten
the prosecution witnesses.
iv. The appellant - accused No. 1 shall not involve in
commission of any similar offences.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
LRS
