1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8152 of 2020

BETWEEN

SANTHOSHA @ SANTHOSHA KORAVRA

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

S/O. DURUGAPPA,

RESIDING AT NEAR VEENATALKIES,

KORACHARA DEEDI, RANEBENNURU TOWN,

HAVERI DISTRICT – 560 016.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY NAYAKANAHATTI POLICE,

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BENGALURU – 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP., for

RESPONDENT-STATE;

SRI A. RAJESH, ADVOCATE for COMPLAINANT (VC))

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE

PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME

No.75/2020 OF NAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA

DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(2)

(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 302, 396,

201, 120(b), 149 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.7

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in Crime

No.75/2020 registered by the Nayakanahatti Police Station

for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 143, 147,

148, 201, 302, 396 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (PA)

Act, 1989.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant-

Eramma wife of deceased Seenappa filed a complaint alleging

that her husband Seenappa along with his nephew Yallesha

and Maresha were staying in a hut having 100 pigs. On

16.08.2020 at about 8.00 p.m., after having food, they were

struck in the hut. On 17.08.2020, she came to know that her

husband along with two others were killed by some unknown

persons and she immediately went to the spot and

thereafter, lodged the complaint against the unknown

persons. During investigation, the Police have arrested

accused No.1 to 6, recorded their voluntary statements,

produced them before the Court and remanded them to

3

judicial custody. It appears that accused No.1 in his

voluntary statement has stated that petitioner-accused No.7

came to the spot after commission of the murder and shifted

the pigs in a goods vehicle. After filing of the charge sheet,

the Police are making hectic efforts to arrest this petitioner.

The petitioner filed a bail petition before the learned Sessions

Judge, which came to be rejected. Hence, the present

petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that

the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has

been falsely implicated by the Police on the basis of the

voluntary statement of accused No.1. Except the voluntary

statement of accused No.1, no other witnesses have stated

anything about the involvement of the petitioner. There is

no overt act attributed against him. The petitioner is not

aware of the filing of the charge sheet. He is ready to abide

by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence,

prayed for grant of bail.

4

4.

Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

objected the bail petition and contended that the petitioner

has actively participated in the commission of the crime. He

himself has abetted other accused persons to commit the

murder of deceased Seenappa and unnecessarily, the

accused persons have committed the murder of three

persons who were sleeping in the hut during night. The

present accused came in a vehicle, shifted the pigs and

thereafter, absconded. If bail is granted, the possibility of

the petitioner further absconding from the case and

tampering the prosecution witnesses is not ruled out. Hence,

he prayed to reject the bail petition.

5.

Sri A. Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the de

facto complainant, filed written objections and