Raju & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

M G Uma, J

The appellants being accused Nos.3 and 4 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST Act’ for short) in Crime No.22/2022 of Sathanoor Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 202 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Munimaregowda.

Heard Sri Roopesha B., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

REASONS

The appellants being accused Nos.3 and 4 are seeking grant of bail. They were apprehended on 13.02.2022 and 10.02.2022 respectively and since then they are in judicial custody. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed and the matter is pending before the Trial Court for trial.

It is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 had caused the death of the deceased-Somanayaka. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 to 4 came to the spot. Instead of informing the offence to the police, they had assisted accused No.1 in shifting the dead body on a two wheeler, accused Nos.3 and 4 have brought the petrol with which they tried to burn the dead body in order to cause disappearance of the evidence. Prima-facie, the offence under Section 302 of IPC is not attracted against these appellants. It is not the contention of the prosecution that they are having criminal antecedents.

It is stated that PWs.1 to 3 are already examined before the Trial Court. PW.1 is the informant, but he is not an eyewitness. PWs.2 and 3 are the inquest mahazar witnesses. As per the charge sheet, the prosecution has cited as many as 37 witnesses. The prosecution has examined all the material witnesses over longer period of time. Therefore, detention of the appellants in custody would amount to infringement of their right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution as well as interest of the complainant and the witnesses.

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.22/2022 of Sathannor Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

a). The appellants shall not commit similar offences.

b). The appellants shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

c). The appellants shall appear before the Court as and when required.

If in case, the appellants violate any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

On furnishing the sureties by the appellants, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the appellants and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the appellants on bail.