Allowed

S. Sudeesh v. State by Jayapura Police

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2013CRL.P/2922/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court allowed a bail petition filed under Section 439 CrPC. The bench observed that the absence of eye witnesses and reliance on a single witness proving presence at the scene did not establish the accused's culpability prima facie. The accused were directed to be enlarged on bail after executing self bonds and sureties with conditions against tampering.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners were enlarged on bail upon executing self bonds of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for a like sum, subject to conditions of attendance and non-interference.

S. Sudeesh Vs State by Jayapura Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2922 of 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

S. Sudeesh, Son of Shankaregowda, Aged about 28 years, Resident of Hithlukoppa, Channekallu, Bethadakolalu Village, Koppa Taluk, Chikmagalur District. PIN – 577 126.

¶9

C. Jagadisha, Son of Channappa Gowda, Aged about 23 years, Resident of Channekallu, Bethadakolalu Village, Koppa Taluk, Chikmagalur District. PIN – 577 126.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(By Shri. K.S. Ganesha, Advocate)

¶12

¶13

AND:

¶14

State by Jayapura Police, Koppa Taluk, Chikmagalur District, PIN – 577 123. …RESPONDENT

¶15

(By Shri. Raja Subramanya Bhat, Government Pleader)

¶16

¶17

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in S.C.No.43 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The

¶21

petitioners are said to be the accused, against whom, the complaint alleges that they have committed the murder of the deceased Srinivasa. According to the complainant, who was the son of the deceased, on 3.12.2012 at about 9 a.m., the present petitioners are said to have committed the murder of

¶22

¶23

Srinivasa with a crowbar. On the basis of the complaint and on the statement of the several witnesses and also on the voluntary statement said to have been made by the accused, the petitioners have been remanded to judicial custody. The petitioners’ bail petition before the trial court has been rejected.

¶24

Hence, the petitioners are before this court.

¶25

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit

¶26

that though it is alleged that the petitioners are said to have picked up a quarrel with the deceased on an occasion prior to his death, there is no witness to the alleged commission of the murder. It is only in the circumstance that there was an alleged altercation prior to the death of the deceased, that the petitioners

¶27

have been made the accused in the case on hand and in the absence of any cogent evidence, no reliance could be placed on

¶28

the alleged voluntary statement in implicating the present petitioners.

¶29

¶30

The learned Government Pleader would submit that

¶31

there are ample circumstances, which clearly implicate the petitioners, apart from the fact that the petitioners had quarrelled with the deceased on a date prior to his death. On the very day that the murder was committed, the petitioners were seen going away from the spot by one other witness. It is on the basis of this material evidence and in the absence of any other motive, for any other person to have committed murder, there is strong suspicion against the petitioners, which could certainly be established at the trial and therefore, would oppose the consideration of the present bail petition.

¶32

In the circumstances of the case, in the absence of any

¶33

eye witnesses and merely on the strength of the testimony of one other witness, who claims to have seen the accused going away from the spot, on the date the murder was committed, it could not be said at this point of time, in the absence of any other evidence clearly implicating the petitioners, that the

¶34

¶35

petitioners were certainly the assailants, prima facie. Therefore, the prosecution would have to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt at the trial notwithstanding that the case is one involving a gruesome murder. Hence, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail.

¶36

Hence, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are to be enlarged on bail, on their executing self bonds in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the court below.

¶37

The petitioners shall attend the court on all dates of hearing. The petitioners shall not seek to influence or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court below, without the prior permission of

¶38

the court.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

S. Sudeesh v. State by Jayapura Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Sudeesh v. State by Jayapura Police

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

Sri T Satisha Vs Smt L Saroja

Govinda Vs Venilla

Prasanna Kumar @ Devva Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Zareen Taj Vs the State of Karnataka

Yuvaraj @ Yuva Vs State by Peenya

Suresh Vs State of Karnataka