MAHENDRA S/O. GADILINGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2016 (for short "SC/ST (POA) Act ") for setting aside the order passed in Special Case No.1067/2020 by I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari dated 06.01.2021 whereby he has rejected the bail petition filed by the present appellant-accused No.16.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that one Gopal Naik filed a complaint alleging that his brother-Ramesh Naik was doing financial business, he had two wives and the brother of the complainant, C.D.Ravi was murdered in 2014 by accused No.1-Ajay kishore and other accused and case was pending in Special Case No.96/2004 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Ballari. It is alleged that 3-4 months prior to the incident, accused No.1 along with his friends tried to compromise the said case but deceased Ramesh Naik denied the said offer. It is further alleged that thereafter all the accused conspired amongst themselves and on 25.07.2010 at about 4.30 p.m., accused No.1 to 5 attacked Ramesh Naik opposite to TV sanitarium and when the complainant after getting knowledge went to the spot, he found that his brother 's bike was standing by the side of the road and his brother-Ramesh Naik sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. In this regard, complaint came to be lodged, which is registered in Crime No.108/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302m 120-B, 109 read with Section 149 of IPC as well as under the provisions of SC/ST (POA Act) and also Arms Act. Thereafter, the investigating officer arrested the other accused. The appellant herein was also arrested on 13.10.2020 and he continued to be in judicial custody. It is alleged that the appellant herein, who is arrayed as accused No.16, has conspired with other accused in commission of the offences and also supplied arms to accused Nos.1 to 5. Hence, after investigation, the investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet. On the basis of the charge sheet, the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance.

(3.) In the meanwhile, the appellant has approached the Special Judge seeking regular bail but the learned Special Judge, by his order dated 06.01.2021 rejected his bail petition. Hence, the appellant claimed that he is constrained to approach this Court by way of seeking regular bail.