Karnataka High Court
Manu. K. M vs State Of Karnataka By on 19 March, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11717
CRL.A No. 502 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.502 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MANU K.M.,
S/O MARULAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
LABOURER, R/AT KANCHUKAL VILLAGE,
S. BIDRE, SINGATAGERE HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.S. GANESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed BY CHICKAMAGALURU RURAL POLICE,
by DEVIKA M REPRESENTED BY SPP,
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF BANGALORE-560 001.
KARNATAKA
2. SHANTHAPPA
S/O LATE RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
COOLIE, R/AT BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE,
MUDIGERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577132.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP A/W
SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11717
CRL.A No. 502 of 2024
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)
(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2023
PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE
CHIKKAMGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.24/2022 AND RELEASE THE
APPELLANT ON BAIL REGISTERED, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 201, 302 OF IPC AND UNDER
SECTION 3(1)(s) AND 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT
ACT 2015 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
also the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed invoking Section 14(A)(2) of
Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities Act) 1982 setting aside the order dated
08.11.2023 passed by the I Addl. Sessions and Special
Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Spl.C.No.24/2022 and release
the appellant on bail for the offences punishable under
Sections 201, 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section
NC: 2025:KHC:11717
3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015.
3. The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that
both deceased and the appellant were working in a coffee
estate and they were residing together in a house
provided by the owner of the estate. That on 18.11.2021
at about 8:30 p.m., when the writer of the estate went to
the coolie line to call the appellant and deceased and there
was no response from them. Thereafter when he along
with the owner of the estate, went inside the house and
found the dead body in the pool of blood. This fact was
intimated to the father of the deceased over phone and he
came on the next morning and lodged a report suspecting
his involvement of this appellant. The Police have
investigate the matter and invoked Section 302 and 201 of
IPC as well as Section 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC and ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 since
victim belongs to the SC/ST. The grounds urged before the
Court prima facie, there is nothing on record to show that
NC: 2025:KHC:11717
appellant knew that the deceased was a member of
schedule caste or a schedule tribe. Hence, offence invoked
under the Special Enactment does not attract unless he
knows that deceased belonged to the particular caste. The
counsel also would vehemently contend that there is an
inordinate delay in registering the case and the appellant
is in custody from 20.11.2021 and no progress in the
matter even though evidence was commenced. The
counsel also submits that NBW was issued against CW7
and he was not secured. When the counsel made the very
same submission in the previous occasion before the
Court, this Court directed the learned Additional SPP to
verify with regard to delay is concerned.
4. The counsel appearing for State also placed on
record the report of Investigating Officer stating that on
17.03.2025, CW8 and CW3 were examined before the Trial
Court and CW7 was given up due to the health reasons
and Trial Court already issued witness summons to CW9,
CW10 and CW11 and date is fixed for further trial on
NC: 2025:KHC:11717
09.04.2025 and the counsel for the State submits that
there is a progress in the matter. But the counsel for the
appellant relying upon the order sheet brought to notice of
this Court that though the trial was commenced on
16.01.2024, there was no progress. The counsel for the
appellant submits that CW7 was secured before the Trial
Court on 04.07.2024 and at the request of the witness, on
the health ground, bind over CW7 and later on he did not
appear and now also CW7 was already given up by the
prosecution. When such report is placed on record, the
counsel contends that the appellant is in custody from
2021 and he may be enlarged on bail with conditions.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the State would vehemently contend that both the
deceased and victim were staying in the very same room
and body was found in the very same room and accused
was apprehended on the very next date and investigation
was conducted and charge-sheet is also filed and now,
witnesses have been examined. The counsel also would
NC: 2025:KHC:11717
vehemently contend that he is going to give instructions to
the Investigating Officer to produce the remaining
witnesses on the next date of hearing and assist the Trial
Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also on perusal of the material
on record and taking note of the charges leveled against
the accused, particularly, in column No.17 wherein specific
allegation is made that this appellant inflicted the injury
with the machete. Though the case is rest upon the
circumstantial evidence, the Court has to take note of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act as such the accused has
to explain the same during the course of the trial. When
such being the case, I do not find any ground to enlarge
the appellant on bail when serious offence allegedly
committed by this appellant and PM report also clearly
discloses that death is due to carnio-cerebral damage, as a
result of injury sustained to head consequent upon sharp
NC: 2025:KHC:11717
heavy cutting force impact. All the injuries are ante-
mortem in nature and fresh at the time of death.
7. Having taken note of the nature of injuries and
considering the fact that victim belongs to the particular
community and offences under Sections 3(1)(s) and
3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015 are also invoked against the
accused, it is not a case for granting the bail. However,
this Court can give direction to the Trial Court to dispose
of the matter as expeditiously as possible and also can
give direction to the Investigating Officer to produce the
remaining witnesses without causing any delay.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:11717
The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the
case as early as possible and the Investigating
Officer is also directed to produce the witnesses
without fail in future date of hearing and liberty is
also given in case, if Investigating Officer fails to
produce the witnesses before the Trial Court on the
next date of hearing. The learned High Court
Government Pleader is directed to instruct the
Investigating Officer as undertaken during the
course of the arguments.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS/SN
