Allowed

Amaresh S/O Rangappa Barike and Anr. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Feb 2013CRL.P/15120/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition filed by the second accused in a murder case. Despite no overt acts being alleged, the court considered the circumstances of abatement and granted bail subject to specific conditions regarding surety, jurisdiction, attendance, and tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

The second petitioner is to be enlarged on bail to execute a self-bond for Rs. 50,000 with a solvent surety, subject to four conditions including not leaving the jurisdiction and attending hearing dat

Amaresh S/O Rangappa Barike and Anr. Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15120 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Amaresh S/o Rangappa Kotema Age: 26 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Rajal Dinni, Taluk: Manvi, District: Raichur.

¶9

Bhimanna S/o Earappa Barike Age: 29 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Rajal Dinni, Taluk: Manvi, District: Raichur.

¶10

… Petitioners

¶11

(Shri Ishwar Raj S Chowdapur, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

The State of Karnataka (Through Manvi Police Station) Represented by Additional State Public Prosecutor Circuit Bench at Gulbarga.

¶14

… Respondent

¶15

(Shri Sanjay A Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor)

¶16

¶17

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the petitioner (A-7 and A-8) on bail in S.C.No.177/2012 pending before Principal Sessions Judge Raichur, which is registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 302, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶21

learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶22

The present petition filed on behalf of accused Nos.1

¶23

and 2 has been withdrawn in so far as accused No.1 is

¶24

concerned. The facts of the case are as follows:

¶25

The petitioners along with others are charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶26

It is alleged that on 15.08.2012 at about 6.20 P.M., the accused had attacked the deceased Hanumantha on Sindhanur-Manvi Road near Durga Bhavani hotel. It transpires that dispute was

¶27

¶28

on his motor cycle which was stopped by the accused and the motive alleged was that the deceased had agreed to sell his land bearing Survey No.32 of Rajal Dinni village, but failed to complete the sale transaction, but sold it to some other and it is in this background that he was attacked and killed.

¶29

In so far as the allegations against the present petitioner are concerned, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are no overt acts alleged against the second petitioner except to state that he had stood guard with an axe to prevent anybody attacking and killing the deceased. However, the Court below has proceeded on the footing that there are eyewitnesses to the incident and it was committed in a broad day light, resulting in the death of the deceased victim and hence the claim of the petitioner as to the inconsistency and contradictions and the fact that there were no overt acts alleged against the petitioner have been glossed over. There is no serious disputed on this, by the learned Additional State Public

¶30

¶31

Prosecutor as the only statement made against this petitioner by the eyewitnesses is that he stood guard while the attack was on. Therefore, this is the circumstances which requires to be established in the trial, in there being the abatement on the part of the petitioner. Hence, a case is made out for enlargement on bail.

¶32

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The second

¶33

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

¶34

i. The petitioner shall offer 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.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

Sd/��

¶40

swk

Amaresh S/O Rangappa Barike and Anr. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amaresh S/O Rangappa Barike and Anr. 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

Vilas S/O Baburao More Vs the State through Hulsoor

Rajashekhar S/O Mallanna Handroli Vs the State of Karnataka through Ratakal

M.D. Sattar S/O Md. Nissar Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka through Its and Ors.

Ganesh S/O Vishwanath Chawan Vs the State of Karnataka

Laxman S/O Siddappa Chinchansur Vs Smt. Pallavi W/O Laxman Chinchansur

Mohammed Moula S/O Gudu Sabv Mutawalli and Ors. Vs the State through Its and Anr.