Dismissed

Mahadevappa S/O. Devappa Bisirotti v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2014CRL.P/101304/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The High Court held that the petitioner, an accused in a murder case, was absconding and witnesses implicated him significantly.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected with a direction to appear before the Magistrate.

Mahadevappa S/O. Devappa Bisirotti Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH OF AUGUST, 2014

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101304 OF 2014

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Shri Mahadevappa S/o Devappa Bisirotti Age: Major Occ: Agriculture R/o Neeralkatti Taluk and District: Dharwad

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

(by Shri Sadiq N. Goodwala, Advocate) AND:

¶10

State of Karnataka Through Police Sub-Inspector Garag Police Station Taluk and District: Dharwad Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Karnataka High Court Bench Dharwad

¶11

… Respondent

¶12

(by Shri Vijayakumar Majage, HCGP)

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the vent of his arrest by the Garag Police in connection with the charge sheet submitted in CC No.313/2014 i.e. Garagi Police

¶14

¶15

Station Crime No.80 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 504 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Dharwad.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Complaint dated 31^st March 2014 is made by the wife of deceased alleging that the petitioner along with other persons

¶19

has committed the murder of her husband. A case was registered in Crime No. 80 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Petitioner is accused No.6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per wound certificate it is stated that the death is due to asphyxia, shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injury sustained. It is stated that the injuries found on the dead-body are the one caused by using sharp edged knife and weapons, but, contrary to the same from the complaint it is seen that the petitioner has only used club, which has not caused death. In the facts and circumstances of

¶21

¶22

¶23

the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the complaint averments itself wherein it is alleged that the petitioner has used club which also is false; the petitioner shall be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶24

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits to dismiss the petition. He submits that though in the complaint it is stated that the petitioner has used club, but the eye-witness i.e. CWs 18, 19 and 20, in their statement made to the police, have stated that death was due to the assault and injuries caused by long rod and sharp edged knife. In respect of the petitioner, these witnesses state that he has used iron rod.

¶25

Heard both. On the basis of the complaint, investigation has been made and charge sheet has been filed in which complainant witnesses have spoken about the participation of this petitioner in committing the offence by using iron rod and admittedly, since the date of incident, he is absconding and is not available for co-operating with the investigation. On the basis of recovery and the statement made by accused persons, charge sheet has been filed. By looking at

¶26

¶27

¶28

the statement of CWs 18, 19 and 20 and also the charge sheet, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case where the benefit of anticipatory bail can be extended.

¶29

In the result, the petition stands rejected.

¶30

SD/JUDGE

¶31

lnn

¶32

Mahadevappa S/O. Devappa Bisirotti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadevappa S/O. Devappa Bisirotti 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

Dinkar Parashuram Maragale Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkatesh S/O. Hanumantappa Korawar Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath S/O. Irappa Karettin Vs the State of Karnataka

R M Siddaroodaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallappa Guruling Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Kariyappa S/O. Bhujangappa Kuri, Vs the State of Karnataka