Karnataka High Court
Uday Kumar Ekkalle vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 25 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7889
CRL.A No. 200183 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200183 OF 2024 (U/S 14 (A)
BETWEEN:
UDAY KUMAR EKKALLE S/O. SANGAPPA EKKALLE,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/A. BANDE NAWAZ WADI, BASAVAKALYANA,
DISTRICT BIDAR-585327.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHETAN KUMAR N. V, AND
SRI. SADANAND SHASTRI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY BASAVAKALYANA TOWN POLICE,
BASAVAKALYAN, BY LEARNED SPP,
THE HONERABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AKKAMAHADEVI COLONY, KALABURAGI,
KARNATAKA-585103.
2. SMT. HEMABAI W/O. MALLIKARJUNA PHULE,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
by JAGADISH T R
Location: High R/A. RAMABAI COLONY, TRIPURANT TALUK,
Court of
Karnataka, BASAVAKALYANA, DISTRICT BIDAR-585327.
Dharwad Bench
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITA REDDY, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SHARANAGOUDA V. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.14A OF THE
SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULE TRIBES PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON
BAIL FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302, 504, 307, 212 R/W. 149 OF IPC, 1860
AND SECTION 3(2) (V) & (VA) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND
SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7889
CRL.A No. 200183 of 2024
ACT 2015, IN CR. NO. 0033/2023 BEFORE THE II ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BASAVAKALYAN, BIDAR AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
Heard Sri. Sadanand Shastri, learned counsel for the
appellant/accused No.1, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Sharanagouda V.
Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Perused the records.
3. The appellant/accused No.1 sought to be
prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302, 504, 307, 212 read with
Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC')
and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015 (for short, 'SCST Act') has filed this
appeal under Section 14-A of SCST Act praying to allow
the appeal and enlarge him on bail.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7889
4. Factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
as under;
There was a grudge between the deceased and
accused No.1-Udaykumar and hence accused No.1 filed a
case for attempt to murder against the deceased in the
year 2019. On the date of incident, when the deceased-
Anand and his two accomplice were assaulting accused
No.2-Digambar with garden cutter and sickle, at that time,
all the accused caught hold of the deceased to do away
with his life and accused Nos.4 and 6 along with other
accused pushed the deceased on the ground and at that
time, accused No.1 was handed over talwar by accused
No.7 who assaulted the deceased with talwar on the head,
due to which the deceased succumbed to injuries.
5. Thereafter, a case has been registered and
during the investigation appellant and others was arrested
by the respondent-police and in turn they have been
remanded to judicial custody. The Investigation Officer
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7889
conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet for the
aforesaid offences.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended
that the appellant/accused No.1 is innocent, he has not
committed any offence, he has been falsely implicated in
the case and he is law abiding citizen, in fact, the
deceased and complainant are the aggressors, there is
case and counter case between both the parties and
accused No.2 was brutally assaulted by complainant and
others. Hence, a case has been registered against the
complainant and others in Crime No.34/2023. Further
accused No.1 belongs to SCST community. Except accused
No.1 rest of the accused persons were granted bail and
hence on the ground of parity appellant/accused No.1 is
entitled for grant of bail. Further, the learned counsel
submits that if bail is granted, the appellant is ready to
abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court.
Thus, he prayed to grant of bail.
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7889
respondent No.2 contend that the appellant is involved in
heinous offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of
IPC; there is prima facie case against this appellant, if he
is released on bail he may tamper the prosecution
witnesses. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and the learned counsel for respondents, it
appears that, on 27.02.2023 at about 10.00 a.m. accused
No.1 had been to work near Harkood cross at that time
accused No.5 came there. Thereafter, at about 12.00 noon
accused Nos.1 and 5 went to Dhaba for having meals,
where accused Nos.7 and 8 came on motorcycle with
weapons. After couple of minutes accused No.9 also went
to Dhaba. After completion of meals they made conspiracy
to commit offence. When the accused persons were
standing near Madival circle at that time accused No.2-
Digambar came on his morotcycle and interrogated with
other accused persons near Pan shop. At about 6.15 p.m.,
deceased and other three-four persons were came there
and assaulted with sward to accused No.2 and caused
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7889
grievous bleeding injuries over his body. At that time
accused Nos.1 to 9 instigated to commit murder and
caught hold deceased, snatched and thrown weapon from
the hand of deceased and pushed him. Due to which he
fell on the ground then appellant/accused No.1 assaulted
with sward on various part of his body and caused injuries.
Hence, the injured Anand succumbed to the injuries on the
same day and complaint was lodged.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused
No.1 contend that the only allegation against accused No.1
is that he assaulted the deceased with talwar and recovery
made as per his statement. But deceased was an
aggressor at the time of incident. Since the date of arrest
he has been in judicial custody.
10. From the perusal of entire charge sheet and
other material available on record, it clearly establish that,
the specific overt act of assaulting is against the
appellant/accused No.1. Accused No.8 is said to have
been given talwar to accused No.1 which was kept in
motorcycle belongs to accused No.7 and thereafter,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7889
accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with the said talwar
on his head. Due to which the deceased succumbed to the
injuries.
11. As per the post mortem report the doctor has
opined that the cause of death is injury to vital organ brain
and hyporalumic shock due to bleeding from multiple
injuries on body. The Investigating Officer recovered
talwar as per the voluntary statement of accused No.1.
12. Thus, at this stage, the appellant/accused No.1
has not made out a prima facie case to enlarge him on
bail. Though the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in
Criminal Appeal no.200177/2023 has granted bail in
favour of accused Nos.4 to 6 and in Criminal Appeal
No.200267/2023 has granted bail in favour of accused
Nos.2, 3 and 9 but, on the ground of parity, accused No.1
is not entitled for bail, as the appellant is not standing on
the same foot as that of accused Nos.2, 3, 4 to 6 and 9.
13. Further, it is well established principle of law
that while considering the bail application, the Court has to
consider the nature of offence, circumstances in which the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7889
offence is committed, position and the status of the
appellant, likelihood of accused fleeing away from justice,
tampering the witnesses, character and antecedent of the
accused. The law is well settled that, while disposing of
the bail matters, the Court need not scan the prosecution
papers and hold a mini trial. Keeping these factors in
mind and on careful perusal of the entire material placed
on record, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is
not entitled for bail.
14. Accordingly, I pass the following;
ORDER
i) Appeal is dismissed.
ii) Considering the fact that the
appellant/accused No.1 is in judicial custody
since 08.03.2023, the Trial Court is directed
to dispose off the matter expeditiously.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
SMM/ct-an
