The court emphasized the duty of magistrates to inform accused persons of their right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., impacting the validity of bail applications made post-charge sheet.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Crl.A.No.2273/2024 is filed by accused No.6 praying to set aside the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.2306/2024, whereunder the bail petition of the appellant - accused No.6 sought in respect of Crime No.197/2024 pending in Spl.C.No.910/2024 registered for offences under Sections 302 , 307, 109 , 114 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be rejected.

2. Crl.A.No.50/2025 is filed by accused No.6 praying to set aside the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Crime No.197/2024, whereunder the application of the appellant - accused No.6 filed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., seeking grant of statutory bail in respect of Crime No.197/2024 of Hosakote Police Station came to be rejected.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

4. The case of the prosecution as per column No.17 of the charge sheet is that there was rivalry in the vegetable business between accused No.1 and the deceased Sri.Naveen Kumar and in that regard there were quarrels between them. The appellant – accused No.1 contacted accused No.2 and told him that a lesson has to be taught to the deceased Sri.Naveen Kumar. Accused No.2 has contacted accused Nos.3 and 4 and all accused Nos.1 to 4 have held talks to finish the deceased Sri.Naveen Kumar and in that regard, accused No.1 agreed to spend a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. In furtherance of the same, accused No.1 had paid Rs.50,000/- to accused No.2 as advance. In furtherance of the conspiracy, accused Nos.3 to 6 agreed to kill the said deceased Sri.Naveen Kumar. On 15.06.2024, when the deceased was returning from the market, accused Nos.3 to 6 in a Maruthi Zen Car bearing No.KA-04-Z-8991 stopped their car in front of the car of the deceased and the deceased Sri.Naveen Kumar started quarrelling with them. At that time, accused Nos.3 to 6 took iron rods kept in their car and all the four accused assaulted the deceased on his head and chest, and the deceased succumbed to injuries on the spot. At that time, they also threatened CW1 who was with the deceased. Charge sheet has been filed against the appellant – accused No.1 and the other accused for the offences under Sections 302 , 307, 109, 114 , 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant - accused No.6 is in judicial custody since 08.07.2024. The appellant - accused No.6 filed a bail petition in Crl.Misc.No.2306/2024 seeking bail in respect of Crime No.197/2024 of Hosakote Police Station and it came to be rejected by impugned order dated 20.11.2024. The said order has been challenged in Crl.A.No.2273/2024. The appellant - accused No.6 had also filed an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., seeking grant of statutory bail and the same came to be rejected by impugned order dated 08.11.2024. The said order is challenged by appellant - accused No.6 in Crl.A.No.50/2025.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant in both appeals would contend that the appellant - accused No.6 who was in judicial custody has not been produced before the trial Court either physically or through video conference and therefore, he was not aware of his statutory right to file application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge has not informed the appellant - accused No.6 of his indefeasible right to apply for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge has a duty to inform the appellant - accused No.6 of his indefeasible right, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon and Others (V) vs.