Allowed

Anjineyalu @ Anji S/O. Late Tippeswamy v. the State by Psi

Karnataka HC26 Aug 2014CRL.P/101225/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, an accused in a murder and SC/ST atrocities case pending before the Sessions Court since four years, was granted bail considering the wife's medical condition and need for child school admissions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail furnished by self bond of Rs 2,00,000/- and a solvent surety for like amount, subject to producing medical documents of wife and appearing in court without lapses.

Anjineyalu @ Anji S/O. Late Tippeswamy Vs the State by Psi — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.101225/2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ANJINEYALU @ ANJI S/O LATE TIPPESWAMY, AGE: 26 YEARS, Occ:: COOLIE, R/O BEHIND T.C.H. SCHOOL, RADIO PARK, COWL BAZAR, BELLARY.

¶9

… PETITIONER (BY SMT.SUNITHA P.KALASOOR, ADV..)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH BELLARY RURAL POLICE STATION, R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BEHCH, DHARWAD.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP)

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN BELLARY RURAL POLICE STATION, BELLARY CRIME NO.274/2010 SPL. CASE NO.5/2011 PENDING BEFORE THE I-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302 & 301 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(X) 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST PA ACT, 1989 BY ALLOWING CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶15

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

For the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 301 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 petitioner was arrested in Crime No.274/2010 and he is in judicial custody for the last four years.

¶19

It is the case of the prosecution that, petitioner-accused No.3 is the relative of accused No.1 who is the supari killer with whom accused Nos.2 and 3 have committed the murder. Prosecution has examined C.W.22 and 28 in whose statement, it is revealed that accused No.3 has purchased chilli powder from C.W.22 and took the machhu from C.W.28, but C.W.22 and 28 not supported the case of the prosecution. C.W.12

¶20

¶21

seen that accused Nos.1 to 3 while preparing for committing the offence and also the statement of C.W.24 who speaks about the motorcycle used by accused Nos.1 to 3. These are the material and evidence available with the prosecution against this petitioner. Hence, learned Government Pleader submits that it is not a fit case to grant bail, since the evidence is over and the case is posted for arguments. He further submits that, instead of granting bail, directions may be issued to the trial Court to expedite disposal of the matter itself.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that wife of the petitioner is suffering from kidney problem and in order to get the admission of their children, the school authorities want presence of the father. Under these

¶23

¶24

circumstances, petitioner’s case may be

¶25

considered.

¶26

I have heard both the counsel.

¶27

Now the prosecution completed their

¶28

evidence and marked documents and the case is posted for hearing. The nature of offence committed by the petitioner if it is proved, petitioner would be convicted with death sentence or life imprisonment. In case, the petitioner is released on bail as submitted by the respondent, chances of absconding may take place. Considering all these things, I consider the petition only for the reason that his children need to get admission to the school. Further, as

¶29

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the wife is suffering from kidney problem, she would produce the medical documents to substantiate the submission that

¶30

¶31

the wife of the petitioner is suffering from kidney problem. Hence, petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶32

i. The petitioner shall furnish self bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The petitioner shall also produce documents relating to kidney problem of his wife.

¶33

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

¶34

iii. The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the hearing dates without there being any single lapse.

¶35

¶36

iv. If there is any single lapse on the part of the petitioner to appear, the bail granted by this Court shall stand cancelled.

¶37

SD/JUDGE

¶38

MBS/-

Anjineyalu @ Anji S/O. Late Tippeswamy v. the State by Psi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjineyalu @ Anji S/O. Late Tippeswamy v. the State by Psi

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

Mahantesh Veerupaxi Munnoli Vs Bharati W/O. Mahantesh Munnoli

Sangappa S/O. Amareshappa Gonal Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mahantesh S/O Tippanna Katagi Vs State of Karnataka

Parashuram S/O Siddappa Kutale Vs the State of Karnataka

Khadarsab S/O Dousad Naragund Vs State of Karnataka by Woman Police Hubli

Narendrakumar S/O. Gopal Shetti Vs the State of Karnataka