JOSEPH JOHNSON N. MAITHKURI versus SUBRAHMANYA & ANOTHER

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 09-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
505
JOSEPH JOHNSON N. MAITHKURI
v.
SUBRAHMANYA & ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 1439 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 09, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Bail – Cancellation of – High Court granted bail to accused
persons – Original complainant has preferred appeal before the
Supreme Court for cancellation of bail and submitted that in a case
of co- accused, Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.39/2022 by judgment
and order dated 06.01.2022 had cancelled the bail order and set
aside a similar order passed by the High Court – Held: In view of
the reasons stated in the judgment and order dated 06.01.2022
passed in Crl.A.No.39/2022, the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court in the instant case releasing accused on
bail deserve to be quashed and set aside – Penal Code, 1860 –
ss.120(B), 302, 201, 34 IPC – Arms Act, 1959 – s. 27(3) .
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1439 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.06.2021 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Dharwad in Criminal Petition No. 101007 of 2021.
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1440 of 2022.
Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, S. K. Pandey, Awanish Kumar,
Anshul Rai, Abhinav Garg, D. Girish Kumar, Kumar Vinayakam Gupta
for M /s Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, Advs. for the Appellant.
V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) dated 10.06.2021 & 08.11.2021 passed by the
High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench in Criminal Petition Nos.
101007/2021 & 101621/2021 respectively, by which the High Court has
allowed the said criminal petitions preferred by the accused Subrahmanya
and Rajesh (respondent No. 1 in the respective appeals) and has directed
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 505
505
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
to release the accused - Subrahmanya and Rajesh on bail in connection
with Case Crime No. 157/2019 of Dharwad Rural Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302, 201 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959,
the original complainant has preferred the present appeals.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant –
complainant has vehemently submitted that while directing the accused
- respondent No. 1 in the respective appeals to be released on bail, the
High Court has not at all considered the gravity of the offences. It is
submitted that the High Court has not at all considered the fact that in
the present case that there are two eye-witnesses and respondent No. 1
– accused has been identified.
2.1 It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant that in case of co-accused, namely, Umesh Nagappa
URF Sangappa, this Court vide judgment and order dated
06.01.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2022 has set aside the
similar order passed by the High Court releasing the said co-
accused on bail and has consequently cancelled the bail order.
2.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has
supported the appellant.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant as well as the State. Though served, none has appeared on
behalf of the accused - respondent No. 1 in the respective appeals. We
have perused the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High
Court releasing the accused on bail. Even liberty is reserved to the State
to move for cancellation of bail in the event of this Court cancelling the
bail of accused No. 4 - Umesh Nagappa URF Sangappa.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the case of co-
accused, namely, Umesh Nagappa URF Sangappa, who was also
released on bail by the High Court, this Court vide judgment and order in
Criminal Appeal No. 39/2022 has set aside the order passed by the High
Court and has consequently cancelled the bail order in favour of the co-
accused. The grounds on which the said co-accused was released on
bail and the grounds on which the present respondent No. 1 –
Subrahmanya is released on bail are same. In paragraph 7, the High
Court has observed as under: -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
507
“7. As per the charge-sheet, CWs. 18 and 19 are eye-
witnesses to the incident. CW-19 who is running tea shop near
the spot has identified accused Nos. 1,2 and 4 in Test Identification
Parade held on 31.10.2019. The police took accused Nos. 1, 2
and 4 on 29.09.2019 to different places like Dandeli, Haliyal and
Dharwad and taken their ph
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.