SINDHUDHARA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are disposed of by a common order. The appellant in Crl.A.No.2048/2022 is accused no.4 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.1974/2022 is accused no.5 in Cr.No.61/2022 registered by Pattanayakanahalli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District. Appellants filed separate applications for bail viz., Crl.Misc.No.1594/2022 and Crl.Misc.No.1556/2022 in the court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru. Since they have stood dismissed, the appellants have approached this court by filing appeal under sec. 14A (2) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ['Atrocities Act' for short].

(2.) It is to be mentioned here that the appellant in Crl.A.No.2048/2022 moved for bail before this court by filing Crl.A.No.1399/2022 and it was withdrawn by the appellant. However liberty was granted to him to move the trial court for bail after investigation was over. Likewise the appellant in Crl.A.No.1974/2022 also filed Crl.A.No.1672/2022 before this court and he also withdrew this appeal. After investigation was over, the appellants move the trial court for bail.

(3.) Charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Sec. 143 , 144 , 147 , 302 , 365 , 367 , 109 , 114 r/w 149 IPC and sec. 3(ii)(v) of Atrocities Act. In brief the prosecution case is that one Rangaiah, the deceased used to send obscene messages to the mother and sister of accused no.1. This prompted accused no.1 to take revenge against the deceased and pursuant to the same he took the help of his friends including the appellants herein and, on 14/6/2022 at about 9.00 p.m. when the deceased was sitting inside his house after having dinner, accused no.1 along with other accused kidnapped him and brought the deceased to Hebbal, Bengaluru in a vehicle. It is alleged that in the vehicle the deceased was severely assaulted and after reaching Hebbal, the deceased was taken inside a gym and again assaulted. Thereafter the deceased was admitted to hospital. On 22/6/2022, Rangaiah died. If the order impugned in both the appeals are read, the court below appears to have not assessed the charge sheet. Its opinion is that if bail is granted to the appellants, they may indulge in tampering the evidence and influencing the witnesses.