Dismissed

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

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2013CRL.P/15017/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition for bail under Cr.P.C. Section 439, the High Court rejected the plea citing recovered blood-stained clothes and matching blood group evidence. The court distinguished the Supreme Court precedent on blood evidence as distinguishable on facts, holding no case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Petition for bail rejected; order dismissing the criminal petition.

Dattu @ Dattatraya S/O Shantappa Navale Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15017 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Dattu @ Dattatraya, S/o. Shantappa Navale, Aged 21 years, Occupation: Coolie, Resident of Filter Bed Ashraya Colony, Gulbarga. … PETITIONER.

¶9

(By Shri Ishwar Raj S. Chowdapur, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka, Through Ashok Nagar Police Station, Gulbarga, Represented by the Additional State Public Prosecutor, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga. … RESPONDENT.

¶12

(By Shri S.S. Aspalli, Government Pleader)

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to release the petitioner on bail in

¶14

¶15

S.C.No.345/2012 pending before IV Addl. Sessions Court, Gulbarga, which is registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the IPC.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under

¶20

Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

¶21

Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for brevity).

¶22

The facts of the case are as follows:

¶23

One Jai Bheem is said to have ill-treated his wife who

¶24

was the sister of Accused No.1, the petitioner herein. Therefore, on account of the continued ill-treatment and torture meted out to his sister, the petitioner along with Accused Nos.2 and 3 had committed the murder of Jai Bheem at about 1.00 a.m and had disposed of the body on a railway track and had crushed his face beyond recognition, in order to destroy the evidence. In support of the said incident, there are no eye-

¶25

¶26

witnesses. It is only circumstantial evidence of the fact that there was ill-will between the deceased and the petitioner. For the aforesaid reason, it is suspected that he might have committed the murder along with accused Nos.2 and 3. However, the police have also recovered blood-stained clothes and the blood found on the autorickshaw that was used in the commission of the offence also was examined. So also the blood found in the blood stained clothes of the accused, which matched the blood group of the deceased. It is on the basis of this that the prosecution has sought to make out a case against the petitioner. The petitioner having approached the court below seeking grant of bail, the same has been rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

The learned counsel places strong reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen vs. State of Rajasthan (2011 (3) Crimes 118 ), to contend that mere matching of the blood groups would not by

¶28

¶29

itself establish the case of the prosecution, as found in the said decision. However, it is to be noted that in the decided case, the Apex Court had found that the murder weapon which was a sword, did contain blood stains. However, the blood had disintegrated and examination of any such dried blood was of a particular blood group, could not by itself establish the case. However, in the present case on hand, the blood stained clothes of the petitioner have been recovered apart from the blood stains in the autorickshaw also matching the blood group, of the deceased coupled with the strong motive that the petitioner had, was also material. Therefore, on facts, it cannot be said that the decided judgment of the Supreme Court would be a precedent. The matter would have to be tested at the trial. Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of bail. The petition is rejected.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Beerappa S/O Mallappa Balichakra Vs the State through Yadgir Town Ps

Arun S/O Appu (Ha) and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka

Srinivas S/O Yankappa Vs the State of Karnataka

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

Yallawwa D/O Yallappa Bagewadi @ Gollar Vs the State of Karnataka R/by Addl.Spp Circuit Bench