The High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench dismissed a criminal petition for bail. The Court refused enlargement of bail to a petitioner charged with murder, holding that holding the legs of the deceased evidenced common intention and precluded lenience.
The petition for regular bail was dismissed.
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, KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200522/2016
BETWEEN: Siddeshwar @ Siddappa S/o Manohar Maled Age: 20 years Occupation: Agriculture Resident of Bijjaragi Taluk & District: Vijayapur
… PETITIONER
(Shri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, Advocate)
AND: The State of Karnataka Represented by Additional State Public Prosecutor, Kalaburagi Bench (Thorough Tikota Police Station District Vijayapur)
(Shri P.S. Patil, Government Pleader)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to grant the regular bail to the petitioner in C.C.No.5196/2015 (Tikota Police Station Vijayapur First Information Report (Crime) No.161/2015) pending on the file of III Additional JMFC Court at Vijayapur, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
3
stage that they had assaulted her husband. When he had tried to run away, the accused had chased him and assaulted him with heavy stones and had committed his murder in broad day light and in full public view. In fact when the brother-in-law of the complainant had tried to intervene, he was threatened saying that he would meet the same fate. It is thereafter that a case has been registered against the accused.
the other accused in committing the murder of the deceased, his
4
action was limited and therefore he ought to be treated with lenience, is not an argument that can be canvassed by a person who had held the legs of the deceased to enable the other accused to commit the murder. The common intention was evident and it was the deliberate act of the accused to have gone to the house of the accused and thereafter to have deliberately chased him in public view and having done him to death is a hard fact and even the minimum role of the accused has aided in a large measure for the act being committed and the petitioner could not be absolved of the crime merely on the assertion that the overt-act attributed to him is limited. Hence, there is no case for granting bail. The lower court has rightly rejected the same. The petition is dismissed.
���� �����
sdu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to a petitioner accused of holding the legs of the deceased during a murder.
Whether limited overt acts justify bail when the accused participated in a deliberate joint murder.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Siddeshwar @ Siddappa
The State of Karnataka
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
