Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, J.
Nagraj S/o. Timmappa - Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka By Mayakonda Police Station - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 325, 394 OF 2021
Decided On : 14-06-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 342, 306, 201 r/w 34 – SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 14, 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 439, 173 – Bail Petition – Offence of Abetment to Suicide – Appeals are filed by Accused Nos. 1 to 3 challenging order passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Davangere rejecting bail petition filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in S.C.No. 119/2020. Subsequent to rejection of bail petitions filed by accused persons, these appeals are filed as contemplated under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) amended Act of 2015.
Finding of the Court:
Though there are sufficient materials for laying charge sheet against accused but prosecution has to establish guilt of accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence by subjecting to examine material witnesses based upon materials secured by 10 during course of investigation. – When charge sheet has been iaid against accused by collecting so much of materials and finds place in records but it cannot be said that those materials are enough to decline relief of bail as sought for by accused Nos. 1 to 3. – It is domain vested with prosecution to establish guilt against accused persons by facilitating worthwhile evidence for securing conviction. – But mere filing of charge sheet against accused even for offences under special enactment of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and so also, offence under provisions of Indian Penal Code cannot be held that accused are not deserving for bail. – But in instant case, major offence is under Section 306 of IPC in addition to other offences. – But accused are in judicial custody since from date of their arrest and moreover, investigating agency has laid charge sheet against accused by collecting so much of materials and so also recording statement of several witnesses which cited in charge sheet laid by 10. – It cannot be said that materials are enough for rejecting bail petition filed by Accused Nos. 1 to 3. – Petition which is filed seeking regular bail has been rejected by trial Court and same has been challenged under these appeals in pursuance of provision under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) amended Act, 2015 – These appeals are preferred by challenging impugned order passed by trial Court in SC it cannot be precluded them for entertaining same petition for granting bail when it has been restored – However, keeping in view contention made by counsel for appellants in these appeals, it is said that there are substances in contentions of counsel for appellants seeking regular bail by consideration of same petition filed by them under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. – It is deemed appropriate to state that appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to be enlarged on bail by exercising concurrent jurisdiction vested with High Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C,. Therefore, in terms of aforesaid reasons as well as in a given peculiar facts and circumstances of case, it is deemed appropriate to interfere with impugned order passed by Court below.
Result: Appeals Allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. These appeals are filed by Accused Nos.1 to 3 challenging the order dated 21.01.2021 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Davangere rejecting the bail petition filed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in S.C.No.119/2020. Subsequent to rejection of the bail petitions filed by the accused persons, these appeals are filed as contemplated under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) amended Act of 2015.
Appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 3 are in judicial custody since from the date of their arrest. Therefore, counsel for the appellants in these matters seeking to allow the appeals filed by the accused by setting aside the order passed by the Court below and grant bail by exercising the power under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. as wherein the concurrent jurisdiction is vested with the High Court and so also, with the District and Sessions Judge.
2. Crl.A.No.325/2021 is filed by Appellant namely Prakash.B. who is arraigned as Accused No.1 and Crl.A.No.394/2021 is filed by Appellants namely Nagraj and Sher Ali who are arraigned as Accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively in S.C.No.119/2020 arising out of Crime No.113/2020 of Mayakonda Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 306, 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beside Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST Act’).
3. It is relevant to state by referring the FIR which has been recorded by the Mayakonda Police in Crime No.113/2020 on 06.10.2020. Initially the offences lugged against the accused were under Sections 341, 342, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act. Subsequent to recording the FIR, the IO investigated the case thoroughly and laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 342, 306, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act against Accused Nos.1 and 3.
4. Heard Sri Shankarappa.S. learned counsel for the appellants who is appearing through video conferencing and learned HCGP for respondent – State who is present before the Court physically in both these appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken me through the complaint filed by one Vrundamma who is none other than the wife of deceased – Marulusiddappa. He contends that the court below erred in considering the material on record that it is nowhere that the accused Nos.2 and 3 got knowledge that the deceased went to a ladies toilet and even at no point of time no one reached to the police station nor enquired about the deceased with the accused persons. Similar contention has been urged even on the part of Accused No.1 – Prakash.B who is working as Sub-Inspector of Police of Mayakonda Police Station. According to the case of the prosecution that the cause of death of deceased Marulasiddappa, is by partial strangulation. Even the final opinion report is yet to be received, but the offence under Sections 302, 201 IPC has not been made out against Accused No.1 – Prakash and other two accused of their involvement. Accused No.1 is aged 59 years and his service is remaining for few months. He is in judicial custody and even taking into consideration of the charge sheeted materials, there is no direct overt act attributed against the aforesaid accused that they are the cause for the death of deceased Marulasiddappa. Even taking into consideration of the CCTV footages that deceased Marulasiddappa was shifted from police station but it amounts to destroying of evidence. Sections 306 and 201 of IPC are not punishable for death or imprisonment for life and even there is no event to abate these appellants to the deceased for committing suicide or lost his life and there is no question of abating for commission of offence to commit suicide, it is not even prima facie case made out by the prosecution for dwelling into the materials.
6. Having gone through the entire mat
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
