Allowed

Pavan S/O Ramchandra Sagar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2016CRL.P/200611/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a murder case trial, the High Court of Karnataka released the accused on bail under Section 439 CrPC. The court found inconsistencies in the complainant's allegations and noted that the lower court's reliance on unverified witness statements was misleading.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to offering self-bond, not tampering with evidence, and attending court hearings.

Pavan S/O Ramchandra Sagar Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200611/2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Pavan S/o Ramchandra Sagar Age: 24 years, Occupation: Car Driver, Resident of Ashraya Colony, Kalaburagi.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(Smt. Anuradha M. Desai, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka Through Chowk Police Station Represented by Additional State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench.

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(Shri P.S. Patil, Government Pleader)

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to release the

¶16

¶17

accused/petitioner on bail in S.C.No.303/2015 (Crime No.100/2015) of Chowk Police Station Kalburagi, on the file of Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 447, 364, 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶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 petitioner and the

¶21

learned Government Pleader.

¶22

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 in the following circumstances:

¶23

It is alleged by the complainant that her husband was attacked by accused Nos.1 to 4 who had tress-passed into their house and dragged her husband on 21.06.2015 at 1.00 p.m. Thereafter, he was seen being beaten up and at the intervention of CWs-1, 6 and 7, the accused are said to have relented.

¶24

¶25

Thereafter, on the same day when her husband was going towards Ashraya Colony, accused Nos.1 to 4 again picked up quarrel with him and took him to Samudaya Bhavan and had assaulted him with sticks, punched him and kicked him and caused injuries. At the intervention of CWs-9 to 27 they were prevented from doing further damage. However, the accused did not let go of the husband of the complainant and had taken him on their motor cycle with the present petitioner following the other accused along with the pillion rider and followed the others. It is further alleged that the complainant’s husband was taken to the grave yard on the context of being carried to the hospital and he was murdered there by smashing his head with a boulder. It is on these allegations that the petitioner has been taken into custody and a case has been registered against the accused.

¶26

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out that the very allegations in the complaint are far-fetched and

¶27

¶28

misleading. There are two complaints lodged. In the first complaint, the complainant has claimed that her husband was beaten up by the accused at 1 ‘o’ clock on 21.06.2015. Thereafter, it is two days later that she has come up with a case of murder alleging that her husband was repeatedly assaulted not only outside their house, but also at Samudaya Bhavan and inspite of intervention of several witnesses he was carried on a motor cycle on the pretext of being taken to hospital and was ultimately murdered at a grave yard. This is a different version and the time given is also in variance with the original complaint. Further, inspite of such a large number of people having witnessed the assault, nobody has sought to follow the accused and did not come to the aid of the deceased. It is also alleged that the present petitioner was only following the other accused on a motor cycle and there were no eye-witnesses to the actual alleged murder of the husband of the complainant. The Court below has however expressed that there were two eye-witnesses to the actual commission of the murder, which is

¶29

¶30

wholly misleading and contrary to the material on record. Even according to the complainant, there were no eye-witnesses to the actual commission of the murder. It is only a presumption that the present petitioner has been accused of having committed the murder. In this background, the learned Counsel would seek bail on behalf of the petitioner.

¶31

Given the role played by the petitioner of having assaulted and assault having been witnessed by several witnesses, it cannot also be presumed that he has committed the murder of husband of the complainant, when the murder was taken place in a grave yard and in the night. Therefore, the Court below having rejected the bail petition on the footing that there were eye-witnesses to the incident, is not agreeable.

¶32

Given the above circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶33

¶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 offer all co-operation in the investigation of the offence.

¶37

iv. The petitioner shall make himself available for further investigation at all points of time.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

��

¶41

swk

Pavan S/O Ramchandra Sagar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavan S/O Ramchandra Sagar 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

Kalu Vs the State

Masjid-E-Habeen Nabi Khana Shaik Roza Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakf and Ors.

Nanu S/O Chandu Pawar Vs Sumitra D/O Keshu Rathod @ Lamani

Tarun Bandhuri Jains Vs the State through

Rubin S/O Manikappa Vs the State through

Smt. Meerabai W/O Balaram Vs Gundusingh S/O Ramkishan Ors.