Court rejected bail application for accused in murder dacoity case involving SC/ST Act offences, noting complainant altered statement and presence of eyewitnesses, citing prior rejected bail petition for co-accused as basis for rejection.
Bail application rejected; petitioner released on bail not granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15113/2013
BETWEEN :
Heera @ Heeralal, S/o: Late Ambadas Age about: 22 Years, Occ: Student, R/o: Godutak Nagar, Gulbarga. District Gulbarga-585 101. … PETITIONER
(By Shri. Mohd. Idris Jagirdar, Advocate)
AND:
The State through Raghvendra Nagar Police Station, Gulbarga.
… RESPONDENT
(By Shri Sanjay.A.Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor)
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 accused petitioner on bail
2
in Crime No.31/2012 and Special case No.34/2012 before II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Gulbarga of Raghvendra Nagar Police Station, Gulbarga which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 212, 201 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and 3, 2(5) of SC/STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
The learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. However, from a reading of the petition and the order of the court below, it is evident that the following was the case of the prosecution. The complainant had claimed that one Lavakumar, Satish and Chandrakanth had assaulted Dasharath and committed his murder. The complainant was the mother of the deceased and was not an eyewitness. She had received information on telephone about her son being assaulted and on account of a communication lapse she had named one of the eyewitnesses as one of the assailants. Therefore on the next day after further ascertaining the proper facts, had altered her earlier
3
statement and corrected herself in pointing out that one of the persons named as the accused was in fact an eyewitness. This change in the version of the complainant was made the primary contention in seeking bail while contending that the veracity of the complaint is seriously doubted, in view of such change in stance. However, in the light of the there being eyewitnesses to the incident and the assault having been carried out in a public place in broad day light, it cannot be said that the present petitioners have made out a case for enlargement on bail, especially in the light of the fact that accused No.2 who had approached this court earlier, seeking bail, as pointed out by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, in Criminal Petition NO.16210/2012 has been rejected by an order dated 29.01.2013. Therefore, the present petition is also rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
msr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused petitioner should be released on bail given inconsistencies in the complainant's statement and the presence of eyewitnesses.
Whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for enlargement on bail considering the nature of the offence and previous rejection of a similar petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Criminal Petition NO.16210/2012Referred¶21
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Heera @ Heeralal
The State
ANAND BYRAREDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
