Karnataka High Court
Shri. Abhishek @ Choki vs State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9537
CRL.A No.1337/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1337/2023
BETWEEN:
SHRI.ABHISHEK @ CHOKI
S/O LATE SUBRAMANI
(AS PER CHARGE-SHEET)
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO.7,
5TH CROSS, HOYSALA LAYOUT,
SERVICE STATION ROAD
AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092 ... APPELLANT
(BY SMT.MANORANJINI, PANEL ADVOCATE FOR HCLSC)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY AMRUTHAHALLI P. S.,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed by
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
LAKSHMINARAYANA BANGALORE 560001.
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: High Court
of Karnataka 2. SHRI.SATHISH S.,
S/O LATE SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
DASARAHALLI VILLAGE, A FARM POST,
BENGALURU - 560 024. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SOWMYA R, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LXX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, AT BENGALURU
CITY IN CRL.MISC.No.3886/2023 ORDER DATED 31.05.2023.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9537
CRL.A No.1337/2023
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
This successive appeal is filed by accused No.2 in Special
Case No.760/2020 pending on the file of the LXX Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru
for the trial of offence under the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short
'SC/ST (PoA) Act), challenging order of rejection of his
successive bail application.
2. The appellant/accused No.2 is being tried along with
accused Nos.1 and 3 on Spl. Case No.760/2020 for the offences
punishable under Sections 120(B), 201, 302 read with 34
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
(PoA) Act on the basis of the complaint of CW.1-Sathish.
3. Accused No.1 is the wife of the deceased Harish. It
is alleged that accused No.1 and accused No.2 had illicit
relationship with each other, therefore to eliminate Harish, they
conspired with accused No.3. In execution of such conspiracy,
NC: 2025:KHC:9537
during the intervening night of 9/10.07.2020, at 1.00 a.m.,
when Harish was sleeping at home, on the information of
accused No.1, the appellant/accused No.2 and accused No.3
entered his house, the appellant with a sized stone crushed the
head of Harish and accused No.3 stabbed Harish and
committed his murder. Further to screen the evidence of
office, the accused carried and dumped the dead body in a
nearby storm water drain.
4. The first bail application of the appellant was
rejected by the Trial Court. He challenged that order before
this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1618/2021. This Court
considering the merits of the case, by order dated 14.01.2022
dismissed the said appeal. Thereafter, the appellant filed
successive bail petition before the Trial Court in
Crl.Misc.No.3886/2023. The Trial Court by the impugned order
dated 31.05.2023 has rejected the said application. This
appeal is filed challenging the said order.
5. Since this is a successive appeal arising out of
successive bail petition, there is no scope to consider the
appeal again on merits. The appeal can be entertained only if
NC: 2025:KHC:9537
there are changed circumstances. The 1st changed
circumstance urged by the appellant is that there is
considerable delay, in trial. Secondly, CW-9 who is the star
witness of the prosecution has not deposed consistently
regarding involvement of the appellant.
6. Learned HCGP submits that CWs.33 and 34 the
Police Officers who investigated the matter, other witnesses
have already been examined and even summons are issued to
CWs.33 and 34. It is submitted that now the matter is listed
on 20.03.2025. Therefore, the trial is almost at the verge of
completion. The said position is not disputed.
7. So far as the credibility of the evidence of
CW.9/PW.13, that has to be evaluated along with other
evidence on record. The Trial Court on considering that aspect
has rejected the application. It is material to note that initially
the appellant himself had filed memo for withdrawal of the
appeal.
8. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does
not find any changed circumstance to revisit the impugned
order passed by the Trial Court or the earlier order passed by
NC: 2025:KHC:9537
this Court. The appeal can be disposed of requesting the Trial
Court for expeditious disposal of the matter. Hence, the
following order,
ORDER
i) Appeal is dismissed.
ii) The Trial Court is hereby requested to expedite the
trial and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as
possible.
This Court places on record the valuable assistance
rendered by the Smt. Manoranjini, Panel Advocate, Karnataka
High Court Legal Services Committee.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL)
JUDGE
MV
