Allowed

Raju S/O Limbu Rathod v. the State through University Ps

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2013CRL.P/15101/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition for bail under Section 439 CrPC, finding the prosecution evidence insufficient to implicate the petitioner in a murder charge without clear proof of the cause of death or police reporting by witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to offering self bond and solvent surety, not leaving jurisdiction without leave, cooperating in investigation, attending hearings, and not tampering with evidence.

Raju S/O Limbu Rathod Vs the State through… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15101 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Raju S/o Limbu Rathod Age: 21 years, Occ: Student Resident of Basavana Tanda, Village: Panegaon, Taluk and District: Gulbarga.

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

(Shri Nandakishore Boob, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State Through University Police Station, Gulbarga.

¶13

… Respondent

¶14

(Shri Sanjay A Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor)

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to release the petitioner on bail, in Crime No.138/2012 of University Police Station, which is registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶20

learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶21

The present petitioner is one of the accused who is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was found dumped in an open sewer and it is thereafter that the deceased was identified and the sequence of events are said to have been reconstructed. It is alleged that the deceased was one Ishwar who was teasing the sister of one Anil accused No.2, in this case and therefore, Anil along with the present petitioner had cautioned the deceased not to bother Anil’s sister. This was done over a drink at that time. It transpires that the waiters at the bar had noticed the three arguing amongst themselves, when they were asked to move out of the bar, since they were

¶22

¶23

creating a commotion, they did leave the bar. But Anil and the present petitioner are said to have assaulted the deceased outside the bar on account of which, he had collapsed. This fact was said to have been witnessed by CW-7 and CW-8. The said witnesses had also asserted that the accused had removed the deceased, who had collapsed, from the spot. However, it is not on record that they were certain about the deceased having died on the spot. It is also not on record that CW-7 and CW-8 had reported the matter to the police or to anybody else. It is only later that the complainant had reported to the University Police Station, Gulbarga about the discovery of the dead body in the open sewer. It is thereafter that the police have taken steps to retrace the sequence of events.

¶24

Given the above circumstances to implicate the present

¶25

petitioner as being one of the assailants of the deceased and that on account of such assault the deceased having died, is not clearly spelt out by the said witnesses. On the basis of such

¶26

¶27

evidence, especially, since those witnesses did not report the matter to the police to implicate the present petitioner, who had no motive to attack and kill the deceased, is not tenable. Though the Court below has taken a strict view of the matter, the manner in which the prosecution has sought to make out a case against the petitioner, cannot be readily accepted. It will necessarily have to stand the test of a trial. Hence, the

¶28

petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail.

¶29

Therefore, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall

¶30

be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶31

i. The petitioner shall offer a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with a solvent surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

iii. The petitioner shall offer all cooperation in the investigation of the offence.

¶35

iv. The petitioner shall make himself available for further investigation at all points of time.

¶36

v. The petitioner shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing of the case.

¶37

vi. The petitioner shall not, in any manner seek to tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶38

Sd/��

¶39

swk

Raju S/O Limbu Rathod v. the State through University Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju S/O Limbu Rathod v. the State through University Ps

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

Chandhibai W/O Premasingh Jadhav Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijay S/O Ramarao Tarage Vs the State of Karnataka

Adeppa S/O Bassappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Nazeeb Hassan S/O Md.Jalal-Hul-Hassan Vs the State of Karnataka through Farthabad Ps

Dilip S/O Hanamanthrao Deshpande Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallesh Vs the State of Karnataka