Allowed

Adeppa S/O Bassappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2013CRL.P/15004/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed by Adeppa S/o Bassappa for bail under Section 439 CrPC in a murder case. The Court granted bail, holding that mere suspicion or the additional circumstance of a money dispute does not justify detention without evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on self-bond of Rs. 50,000 with surety, subject to conditions of not leaving jurisdiction and attending hearings.

Adeppa S/O Bassappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15004/2013

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Adeppa S/o Bassappa, Age: 27 Years, Occ: Tractor Driver, R/o: Kurbaradoddi Galag, Taluk: Deodurga, District Raichur. … PETITIONER (By Shri. Ishwar Raj.S.Chowdapur, Advocate)

¶9

AND: The State of Karnataka (Through Jal Halli Police Station) Represented by Additional State Public Prosecutor, Circuit Bench, Gulbarga. … RESPONDENT (By Shri Sanjay.A.Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor)

¶10

¶11

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Court to release the petitioner on bail in Crime No.57/2012, of Jalhalli police station District Raichur, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 34 and 302 of Indian Penal Code.

¶12

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

¶15

The facts are as follows: The present petitioner is

¶16

arrayed as accused No.3 in an incident whereby it is alleged that the present petitioner along with the accused Nos.2 and 3 namely, Mahakali Channappa and Yalagati Amresh, had consumed alcohol at Galag Village. Thereafter they had gone along with the deceased carrying more bottles of liquor and they were last seen together by CW.4. It transpires that later the deceased was found dead with bleeding injuries on his head and the present petitioner and other accused were said to be

¶17

¶18

absconded immediately thereafter. On the basis of suspicion that the deceased had lent money to the present petitioner and since he was demanding repayment and there used to be frequent quarrels. It was the reason that the deceased was murdered because the petitioner was unable to repay the money and could not to tolerate the demands by the deceased. It was on that suspicion that all the accused were taken into custody. On the basis of voluntary statement made by the accused, it is claimed that they had recounted the sequence of events and the manner in which they had committed the murder. Therefore a case has been registered against the three accused under the several provisions of Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The accused Nos.2 and 3 having approached this court

¶20

seeking bail the same has been granted by an order dated 19.11.2012 in Criminal Petition No.16019/2012. This court has,

¶21

however, opined that however grave the suspicion against the accused it could not take the place of evidence and therefore till

¶22

¶23

such time the prosecution was able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt at the trial, to detain the petitioners in custody would result in a miscarriage of justice and accordingly had granted bail.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on a parity of reasoning and would submit that the allegations are common against all the three accused except that the additional circumstance of the deceased having lent money to the petitioner by itself would not make him the murderer. Unless there was better evidence, which is totally lacking to find the petitioner as being involved. The question of detaining the petitioners in custody on mere suspicion would be unjust.

¶25

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor,

¶26

however, would insist that there were no other reason as to why the deceased ought to have murdered except that there were frequent quarrels between the petitioner and the deceased and they were last seen together while in an inebriated state.

¶27

¶28

Therefore the conclusion would be that one thing had lead to another and the deceased had been murdered. The voluntary statement made by the accused would clinch the issue and merely because accused Nos.2 and 3 have been enlarged on bail by this court, the petitioner claiming parity, will not apply to the petitioner.

¶29

However, given the allegations which are common against the three accused the mere additional circumstance that the deceased in fact had lent money to the petitioner by itself would not make out a case. The additional circumstance that deceased had lent money to the petitioner, by itself would not justify the implication of the petitioner with any degree of certainty. Therefore the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶30

Hence, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶31

¶32

i. The petitioner shall furnish a self-bond for a sum of �50,000/- with solvent surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the court below.

¶33

ii. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below, without the leave of the court.

¶34

iii. He shall not in any manner, seek to tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶35

iv. The petitioner shall attend the court below on all dates of hearing in the proceedings that would ensue.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

msr

Adeppa S/O Bassappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adeppa S/O Bassappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Jafar S/O Shaikh Rukmuddin and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka through Excise P.S.

Mousin Ahmed S/O Mahimoddo Ali Jamadar and Ors. Vs the State through Grameen P.S., Gulbarga

Dattu @ Dattatraya S/O Shantappa Navale Vs the State of Karnataka through Ashok Nagar Ps

Chandhibai W/O Premasingh Jadhav Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijay S/O Ramarao Tarage Vs the State of Karnataka

Anila Pavade S/O Late Malleshappa Vs Smt. Bhagya Jyothi Alleged to Be the W/O Anila Pav