Karnataka High Court
Kiran @ Beggar vs State Of Karnataka on 30 October, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43792
CRL.A No. 1666 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1666 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
KIRAN @ BEGGAR
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
CHAMUNDESHWARI CHIKEN CENTER
VIDHYANAGAR, MYSORE CITY
KARNATAKA - 570 029.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI AKSHAY KOLLE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NAZARABAD POLICE STATION
Digitally signed by MYSURU
LAKSHMINARAYANA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF HIGH COURT BUILDING
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. BHANUMATI M
W/O LATE B M DORESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT No.210, 6TH CROSS
VIDYANAGAR, NAZARBAD MOHALLA
MYSORE - 570 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43792
CRL.A No. 1666 of 2024
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF
SC/ST (POA) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE REJECTION OF BAIL
APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 439
OF Cr.P.C. VIDE ORDER DATED 01.04.2024 BY THE VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU IN
SPECIAL CASE No.690/2023 ARISING OUT OF CR.No.90/2023
REGISTERED AT NAZARBAD P.S., MYSORE DISTRICT,
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A 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 accused No. 3 praying to
set aside the order dated 01.04.2024 passed in Spl.C. No.
690/2023 by VI Additional District and Special Judge,
Mysuru, whereunder the bail application of this appellant -
accused No. 3 sought in respect of crime No.90/2023 of
Nazarabad Police Station registered for offence punishable
under Sections 341, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC
and Section 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for
the sake of brevity referred to as the SC ST (POA) Act')
came to be rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:43792
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant -
accused No. 3 and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 -
State. Inspite of service of notice respondent No. 2
remained absent and unrepresented.
3. As per column No. 17 of charge sheet case of
the prosecution is that on 18.08.2023 deceased - Balaraj
had gone to Ooty and when he did not return, C.W.1 -
mother of deceased - Balaraj asked accused Nos. 1 and 2
who were acquainted with the deceased, to make a phone
call to the deceased - Balaraj and they contacted Balaraj
over phone and gave it to C.W.1, Balaraj told her that he
was still in Ooty. Thereafter, on 19.08.2023 accused Nos.
1 and 2 made phone call over mobile of deceased -
Balaraj, at that time, there was a quarrel between them
over phone. In that regard, on 19.08.2023, at about 09.20
pm, the deceased - Balarj came to Mysuru and when he
was in a circle, at that time, accused Nos.1 to 3 were
waiting for him and started quarrelling with the deceased
- Balaraj and abused him in filthy language. At that time,
NC: 2024:KHC:43792
accused No.1 made phone call to his father - accused No.
4 and informed him that the deceased - Balaraj was
abusing him in filthy language. Accused No. 4 came to the
main road of Vidyanagar and when the deceased - Balraj
was going on the said road, accused Nos.1 to 3 were
following him and at that time, accused No. 1 told his
father - accused No. 4 to catch hold of the deceased -
Balaraj and accused No. 4 caught hold of the deceased -
Balaraj and at that time accused No. 1 quarreled with the
deceased - Balaraj and took knife which was with accused
No. 2 and slashed on the neck of the deceased and caused
injury. When the deceased was running to escape from
them, at that time this accused No. 3 held the leg of the
deceased and made him to fall and at that time, accused
No.2 took knife from accused No.1 and assaulted with the
said knife on right rib of deceased - Balaraj. Thereafter,
when the deceased - Balaraj tried to escape, accused Nos.
2 and 3 made him to fall and at that time again accused
No.2 assaulted the deceased on his leg and other parts
with knife. The deceased succumbed to the injuries
NC: 2024:KHC:43792
sustained. Appellant - accused No. 3 who was arrested on
20.08.2023 is in judicial custody and had filed bail
application along with accused No. 2 and the same came
to be rejected by the impugned order. Said order has been
challenged in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for appellant - accused No. 3
would contend that no serious overt act is alleged against
this appellant - accused No. 3 and there are no criminal
antecedents. He has submitted that accused No. 3
cooperated with the Police in the investigation. As charge
sheet is filed appellant - accused No. 3 is not required for
custodial interrogation. Appellant - accused No. 3 was not
part of any quarrel between deceased - Balaraj and
accused Nos. 1 and 2. With this he prayed to allow the
appeal and grant bail to appellant - accused No. 3.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that
appellant - accused No. 3 made the deceased - Balaraj to
fall by pulling his leg and facilitated accused Nos. 1 and 2
NC: 2024:KHC:43792
to assault him with knife. C.W.2 and C.W.3 are eye
witnesses to the incident. Charge sheet material show
prima facie case against this appellant - accused No. 3 and
other accused. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
this Court has perused the impugned order and charge
sheet material.
7. As per column No. 17 of the charge sheet and
considering the statements of the eye witnesses - C.W.2
and C.W.3, it is clear that no serious overt act is alleged
against appellant - accused No. 3. Serious overt act is
alleged against accused Nos.1 and 2 who are alleged to
have assaulted the deceased - Balaraj with knife.
Allegation against this appellant - accused No.3 is pulling
the leg of the deceased - Balaraj and making him to fall
on the ground. As charge sheet is filed, appellant -
accused No.3 is not required for custodial interrogation.
Considering all these, the appellant - accused No.3 has
NC: 2024:KHC:43792
made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order
and grant of bail.
8. In the result, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
01.04.2024 passed in Spl.C. No. 690/2023 by VI
Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, is set aside
insofar as appellant - accused No. 3 is concerned.
Consequently, the bail application filed by appellant -
accused No.3 is allowed and he is ordered to be released
on bail in crime No. 90/2023 of Nazarabad Police Station
(pending in Spl.C. No. 690/2023) subject to following
conditions:
i. The appellant - accused No. 3 shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one
surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial
Court.
ii. The appellant - accused No. 3 shall not tamper the
prosecution witnesses.
NC: 2024:KHC:43792
iii. The appellant - accused No. 3 shall appear before the
trial Court on all dates of hearing, unless exempted
and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
LRS
