Praveen @ Hitachi vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J

Crl.A.No.1945/2024 is filed by the appellant – accused No.3 and Crl.A.No.2166/2024 is filed by the appellant –accused No.4.

Both appeals are filed challenging the order dated 25.09.2024 whereunder bail application filed by appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 in respect of Crime No.6/2021 of Rajagopal Nagar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 504, 120-B read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity), Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “SC and ST Act” for brevity) and Section 25(1)(B)(b) read with Section 4 of the Indian Arms Act came to be rejected.

Heard learned counsel for appellants – accused Nos.3 and 4 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

The F.I.R was registered on 09.01.2021, at the instance of respondent No.2, who is the sister of the deceased namely Sri.Srinivas. The F.I.R discloses enmity between the deceased and one Sri.Bharath, who is not alive. The actual incident took place on 09.01.2021, when the deceased and respondent No.2 were present in the site where a house was being constructed. It appears that the deceased was getting the house constructed for his sister i.e., respondent No.2. When the deceased was sitting in the site, at about 1.00 pm., seven to eight persons came stating that the deceased was responsible for the death of Sri.Bharath and assaulted him indiscriminately with the weapons such as long, dragon and machete etc., and left the place. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. Appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 who are in judicial custody filed bail application along with accused No.5 and same came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 25.09.2024 which is challenged in these appeals.

Learned counsel for appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 would contend that C.W.1, 12 to 14, 19 to 21, 23 and 24 who are cited as eye witnesses are already examined and therefore, there is no threat to the material witnesses of the prosecution. He further submits that bail application of accused Nos.1 to 5 earlier came to be rejected only on the ground that the deceased had taken their names at the time of incident. He submits that the accusation against accused Nos.1 to 17 is assaulting the deceased with weapons and committing his murder. He submits that accused Nos.6 to 17 have been granted bail by this Court and accused No.18 has been granted bail by the trial Court. He submits that out of 80 charge sheet witnesses, 25 have been already examined. Appellants are in judicial custody for more than 03 years and 10 months and conclusion of the trial will take long time. The overtacts alleged against appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 are similar to that of overtacts of other accused who have been granted bail by this Court. On these grounds, he prays to set aside the impugned order and grant of bail to appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4.

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 –State would contend that offence alleged against appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 is heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Merely because eye witnesses are examined is not a ground for grant of bail. Appellants are rowdy sheeter involved in many cases. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of appeals.

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned order and charge sheet materials.

C.W.1 is sister of the deceased, C.W.12 to 14, 19 to 21, 23 and 24 are eye witnesses to the incident and they have already examined by the prosecution. As eye witnesses are already examined there is no threat to the material witnesses of the prosecution. Accused Nos.6 to 17 against whom overtact of assault is alleged have been granted bail by this Court. Therefore, appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to grant of bail on the ground of parity. Appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 have been made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail with conditions.

In the result, the following

ORDER

i) Both appeals are allowed.

ii) The order passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, (CCH-71), Bengaluru dated 25.09.2024 in Special Case No.646/2021 is set aside. The bail application of appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 is allowed and they are granted bail in Crime No.6/2021 of Rajagopal Nagar Police Station pending in Spl.C.No.646/2021 subject to the following conditions:

(i) Appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

(ii) Appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 shall not tamper with remaining prosecution witnesses and they shall not threaten them.

(iii) Appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 shall regularly appear before the Trial Court, till conclusion of the trial.

(iv) Appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 shall mark their attendance in the jurisdictional police station once in a week, preferably on Sunday between 9.00 am and 12.00 noon, till conclusion of the trial.

(v) Appellants –accused Nos.3 and 4 shall not get involved in any other criminal case in future. If the appellant – accused No.7 gets involved in any criminal case in future, the Trial Court may cancel the bail soon after the same is brought to its notice.