Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21700 CRL.A No. 624 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 624 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: SUJAY BHARGAV @ SUJI S/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT VENAKTESHWARA NILAYA, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, KUVEMPU NAGARA, HANUMANTHAPURA TUMKUR - 572 103. (BY SRI. SUDHANVA D.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Legal Reasoning
BY KYATHASANDRA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY H.C.G.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
Legal Reasoning
2. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE PUTTANARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, A D BY CASTE, R/AT 5TH CROSS, NEAR SAMUDHAYABHAVAN, HOSALLAIAHNA THOTA, BATAVADI, TUMKURU - 572 104. Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 R2 - SD) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2024 IN - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21700 CRL.A No. 624 of 2025 HC-KAR SPL.C.NO.444/2019 ARISING OUT IN CRIME NO.222/2018 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.444/2019 ARISING OUT IN CRIME NO.222/2018 REGISTERED BY KYATHASANDRA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 212, 302, 201 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND U/S.3(1)(I), (2)(3) AND (4) OF KARANATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIME ACT 2000 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU. THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant being accused No.1 is 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.222/2018 of Kyathasandra Police Station, Tumakuru registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 212, 302, 201 read with 149 of IPC, under Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) of Karnataka Control of Organization Crime - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21700 CRL.A No. 624 of 2025 HC-KAR Act, 2000 (for short, 'the KCOC Act'), on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Krishnamurthy. 2. Heard Sri.Sudhanva D.S., learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional S.P.P. for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record. 3. 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 appellant is 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: R E A S O N S 4. The charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 12 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 212, 302, 201 read with 149 of IPC, under Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) of the KCOC Act. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 and the deceased were - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21700 CRL.A No. 624 of 2025 HC-KAR having real estate business and they were rowdy sheeters. There was a business rivalry between the deceased and the present appellant. It is stated that the deceased was elected as a Deputy Mayor of Tumkur City Corporation and there was political rivalry also. The appellant had conspired with the co- accused to cause the death of the deceased. As such, on the date of incident, the accused armed with deadly weapons, assaulted the deceased and inflicted fatal injuries, as a result, he died. 5. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that this appellant had conspired with accused Nos.2 to 4, 8 to 11 before causing the death of the deceased. The appellant was apprehended on 03.10.2018. He has led to the recovery of two longs, one dragger and bloodstained clothes. There are eyewitnesses to the incident as per the case made out by the prosecution. 6. It is stated that as many as 19 witnesses out of 225 witnesses cited in the charge sheet, are examined and none of the eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21700 CRL.A No. 624 of 2025 HC-KAR It is also stated that even the witnesses to the recovery mahazar have also not supported the case of the prosecution. 7. It is brought to the notice of the Court that CW.3- one of the eyewitnesses to the incident was murdered on 02.12.2020. However, the co-accused against whom similar allegations are made especially accused No.2 who is one of the accused along with the appellant in S.C.No.72/2021 for having murdered CW.3, are already been acquitted and accused No.3 is released on bail in the present case. 8. It is stated that the appellant is having criminal antecedents. But the order granting bail to accused No.3 discloses that, even he had criminal antecedents and that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail in his favour. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the appellant is also entitled for grant of bail under the principles of parity, subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution as well as interest of the complainant and the witnesses. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21700 CRL.A No. 624 of 2025 HC-KAR 9. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
Decision
The appeal is allowed. ORDER The appellant-accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.222/2018 of Kyathasandra Police Station, Tumkuru, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: a). The appellant shall not commit similar offences. b). The appellant shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c). The appellant shall appear before the Court as and when required. If in case, the appellant violates 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 appellant, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21700 CRL.A No. 624 of 2025 HC-KAR the correctness of the addresses and authenticity of the documents furnished by the appellant 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 appellant on bail. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26