Harshith P S vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J

This appeal is filed by the appellant - accused praying to set aside the order dated 21.08.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 276/2024 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri, whereunder the bail petition sought in respect of crime No. 33/2024 of Kushalnagar Police Station for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the SC ST (POA) Act’) came to be rejected.

Heard learned counsel for appellant - accused, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned HCGP for respondent – State.

Case of the prosecution as per column No. 17 of the charge sheet is that the deceased – Santosh Kumar was working in Kannika International Bar and Restaurant and on 21.04.2021, at about 03.15 pm, the appellant - accused came on his bike – KA-12-S-8367 to Kannika International Bar and Restaurant, parked his vehicle in front of the Bar, went inside the bar and consumed alcohol till 11.00 pm. At the time of closing of the Bar the appellant - accused asked the deceased to give one more beer bottle and at that time deceased – Santosh Kumar told that it was closing time and did not give beer to the appellant - accused. C.W.17 and C.W.18 came to the Bar at 09.45 pm and the appellant - accused thought that they might have come to the bar on the phone call by deceased. The appellant - accused went out of the Bar at 11.00 pm and went to Kannika International Kalyana Mantapa on his bike, parked his bike there, attended the marriage, had dinner, thereafter forgetting that he had parked his vehicle in front of the Kalyana Mantapa, came to Bar and searched for his bike. When he did not found the bike, at about 11.30 pm, when the deceased – Santosh Kumar was talking in front of the Bar over phone, the appellant - accused asked him about his bike and the deceased did not spoke to him as he was talking over phone and thereafter, when the deceased was going in a passage to washroom the appellant - accused started quarrelling with him and assaulted him with fist on his face and took beer mug and assaulted him with it on his forehead, head and thereafter he broke the said mug by hitting it to a pillar and with that broken mug he assaulted the deceased on his neck. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Hospital by C.W.8, 14 and 24 and the Doctor intimated them that he had died. Charge sheet has been filed against appellant - accused for offence punishable under Section 302 and 3(2)(v) of SC ST (POA) Act. The appellant - accused is in judicial custody and he had filed bail petition and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order.

Learned counsel for appellant - accused would contend that the incident has taken place at about 11.30 pm and complaint came to be filed at 04.10 am on 22.04.2024 and there is delay in filing the complaint. At the time of incident the Bar had been closed and there was no motive for the appellant - accused to assault the deceased and commit his murder. Case of the prosecution is doubtful. As charge sheet is filed the appellant - accused is not required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellant - accused.

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent – State would contend that C.W.2, C.W.3, C.W.10 to C.W.13 and C.W.15 are eye witnesses to the incident. C.W.2 and C.W.3 are Receptionist and Room Boy working in Kannika International Bar and Restaurant who have witnessed the appellant - accused assaulting the deceased with beer mug and committing his murder. Postmortem report indicate six injuries and the Doctor has opined that death is due to cut throat injury. He submits that there is prima facie case against the appellant - accused for the offence alleged against him. One of the offence alleged against the appellant - accused is punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would contend that there is no delay in filing the complaint. The victim belongs to Schedule Caste and the complainant is the wife of deceased who is having a kid. If the appellant - accused is granted bail there is threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. With this she prayed to dismiss the appeal.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties this Court has perused the impugned order and other charge sheet material.

The incident has taken place in front of Kannika International Bar and Restaurant. The deceased – Santosh Kumar was working in the said bar. There was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant - accused with regard to non-supply of beer as demanded by the appellant - accused. The appellant - accused quarreled with the deceased, assaulted him with beer mug and broken beer mug on his face, neck etc., and caused injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. Said incident has been witnessed by C.W.2 – Receptionist and C.W.3 – Room Boy of Kannika International Bar and Restaurant. As there are eye witnesses to the incident, motive becomes insignificant. Considering the charge sheet material there is a prima facie case against the appellant - accused for the offence alleged against him. If the appellant - accused is granted bail there is threat to the prosecution witnesses. One of the offence alleged against the appellant - accused is punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. No grounds are made out by the appellant - accused for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail.

In the result the following;

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.