Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 239 (KAR)

Rangaswamy N. D. v. State of Karnataka

2022-02-18

K.S.MUDAGAL

body2022
JUDGMENT K.S. Mudagal, J. - Aggrieved by the rejection of his bail application, accused No. 4 in Spl. Case No. 65/2021 on the file of the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya has preferred the above appeal. 2. The appellant and 5 others are facing trial in Spl. Case No. 65/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 143, 120B, 302, 201 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 ('SC/ST Act' for short) on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by respondent No. 1 Police in Crime No. 1/2021 of their Police station. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: That due to quarrel between the mother of deceased Ravindra and the sister in law of accused No. 1, sister in law of accused No. 1 committed suicide. Deceased Ravindra and his mother were prosecuted in the said case and they were acquitted. Accused No. 2 and appellant had ill will against Ravindra regarding contracts in building construction works. Therefore, accused Nos. 1, 2 and appellant conspired to commit murder of Ravindra. For that purpose, they hired accused Nos. 2, 3, 6 and juvenile conflict in law. In execution of such conspiracy, on 02.01.2021 at about 9.30 a.m. accused Nos. 2, 3, 6 and juvenile conflict in law assaulted Ravindra near his land in Navile village of Maddur Taluk with iron rod, stone and committed his murder. To screen the evidence of offence, the accused tied a stone to the dead body and dropped that in Shimsha river. 4. On finding the dead body, wife of Ravindra filed complaint against 9 persons. The Investigating Officer filed 'B' report in respect of accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 shown in the FIR. In the FIR appellant was shown as accused No. 6. The appellant was arrested on 06.01.2021 and he is in judicial custody. 5. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected his bail application on the following grounds: i) The offence alleged against the appellant is heinous one; ii) There is prima facie case against the appellant; iii) The case is still at the stage of trial, if bail is granted he is likely to tamper the witnesses. 6. 5. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected his bail application on the following grounds: i) The offence alleged against the appellant is heinous one; ii) There is prima facie case against the appellant; iii) The case is still at the stage of trial, if bail is granted he is likely to tamper the witnesses. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case is based purely on circumstantial evidence, even those circumstances are very weak. He submits that as per the charge sheet records themselves, the appellant also belongs to Scheduled Caste, therefore, Section 3 of the SC/ST Act is not applicable. He further submits that the appellant is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 7. Sri V.S. Hegde, learned SPP-II and Sri Roshan H.C., learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submit that the allegations against the appellant are heinous and there is prima facie material against the appellant to show his involvement in the crime. They further submit that having regard to the gravity of the offence and the material on record, the trial Court has rightly rejected the bail petition and that does not warrant interference by this Court. 8. In support of his submissions, learned SPP II relies on the judgment in Hariram Bhambhi vs. Satyanarayan and another Crl.A. No. 1278/2021 (D.D. 29.10.2021) with regard to the principles for grant of bail. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court extracted its earlier judgment in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana [ (2021) 6 SCC 230 ]. As per the said judgment, the factors to be considered while passing the bail order are as follows: i) the facts of the case; ii) the nature of allegations; iii) gravity of offences and iv) role attributed to the accused. 9. The facts of the case are already narrated above. As per the charge sheet records themselves, the appellant was not the actual assailant. He was only a conspirator. Admittedly there are no direct witnesses to the case. 9. The facts of the case are already narrated above. As per the charge sheet records themselves, the appellant was not the actual assailant. He was only a conspirator. Admittedly there are no direct witnesses to the case. The circumstance relied on by the prosecution are: i) There was motive for the appellant for commission of murder; ii) The appellant was last seen with accused No. 2; iii) Thereafter C.W.3 saw the victim proceeding towards the place where the appellant and accused No. 2 were seen together; iv) The call detail records of the cell phone of the appellant showed the location of the scene of offence and exchange of calls between him and accused No. 2; 10. As already pointed out, the motive circumstance was attributed to all the three accused and out of them 'B' report was filed in respect of two accused. C.W.3 is the witness for the last seen theory. It is not their case that the victim and the appellant were seen together. Their case is that C.W.3 saw the appellant and accused No. 2 together and thereafter he saw the victim proceeding towards the place where appellant and accused No. 2 were seen together by him. 11. The contents of the call detail records are not collected. The said circumstance alone cannot be called as a reasonable ground to believe that the appellant has committed the offence alleged against him. 12. While considering the bail application, the Court has to strike balance between the liberty of an individual and achieving justice on trial. The charge sheet shows that there are 53 witnesses in the case, therefore, the trial may take some time. On such circumstantial material, if the appellant is subjected to pretrial conviction and sentence and if ultimately he is acquitted, then the position becomes irreversible. 13. So far as the provisions of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act as per the charge sheet records themselves the appellant also belongs to scheduled caste. There is no basis in the records for the observation of the trial Court that the accused were threatening the witnesses from the jail. If at all there are any such apprehensions that can be remedied by imposing suitable conditions. 14. Under the circumstances, the judgment in Hariram Bhambhi's case cannot be justifiably applied to the facts of this case. There is no basis in the records for the observation of the trial Court that the accused were threatening the witnesses from the jail. If at all there are any such apprehensions that can be remedied by imposing suitable conditions. 14. Under the circumstances, the judgment in Hariram Bhambhi's case cannot be justifiably applied to the facts of this case. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the bail application. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.10.2021 passed in Spl. Case No. 65/2021 is hereby set aside. The appellant is granted bail in Spl. Case No. 65/2021 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya subject to the following conditions: (i) The appellant shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court; (ii) He shall appear before the Court as and when required for the trial; (iii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner; (iv) He shall not visit Navile village of Maddur Taluk till the trial is concluded. Registry shall communicate the copy of the order to the jurisdictional Court and prison.