Allowed

Honnappa S/O Hanmanth Battar v. the State through

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2016CRL.P/200619/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition filed under Section 439 CrPC. The Court held that denying bail based solely on the complainant's statement resulting in a death would cause a miscarriage of justice, especially where the accused's presence at the scene was not clearly established.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to furnishing bond of Rs. 10,00/- with surety and complying with usual bail conditions.

Honnappa S/O Hanmanth Battar Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200619 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Honnappa S/o Hanmanth Battar Age: 25 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Devatkal at Present Talabidi Village, Shahapur Taluka District: Yadgiri.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(Shri Ganesh Naik, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State through Bheemarayanagudi Police Station, Distirct: Yadgiri.

¶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 allow the petition and release the accused/petitioner on bail in Crime No.34/2016 of

¶16

¶17

Bheemarayanagudi Police Station District. Yadgir, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 498A, 306 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 learned

¶21

Government Advocate.

¶22

It is the case of the prosecution that as per the complaint,

¶23

the complainant’s daughter was given in marriage to the petitioner and that all was not well between the couple and on a visit to her parents’ house, it was found that the petitioner and the daughter of the complainant had gone to bed in a room and in the morning, her parents had heard their daughter cry for help and on investigation, it was found that she was stroking and frothing at the mouth and she had indicated that she had been administered poison by the petitioner. Ultimately, she had died. It is on the basis of the complaint that the petitioner was instrumental for either abetting

¶24

¶25

commission of suicide by the deceased or he having forcibly administered poison, that a case had been registered against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for brevity). The petitioner having approached the court below seeking bail along with his sisters who had also been roped in as accused, the court below has found that there was no case made out against his sisters as they were not present in the scene. Even if there was ill-treatment, it would have to be established at the trial and had hence granted bail to his sisters. But, proceeding on the basis that the petitioner was indeed present along with the deceased and had stayed overnight in the complainant’s house, the court below has opined that it was not a fit case for grant of bail.

¶26

Given the above circumstances where the death has

¶27

occurred in the complainant’s house, the allegation that the petitioner was also present, cannot be readily accepted. Merely on the basis of the complainant’s statement, to deny the bail to the accused would result in a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the

¶28

¶29

petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶30

The petitioner shall furnish a self-bond for a sum of

¶31

��0,000/- with a surety for a likesum, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶32

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

¶33

The petitioner shall offer all co-operation with the investigation of the offence.

¶34

He shall not in any manner, seek to tamper with the

¶35

prosecution evidence.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Honnappa S/O Hanmanth Battar v. the State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Honnappa S/O Hanmanth Battar v. the State through

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

Shanta Vs Mahantesha

Basanna Vs Devendrappa

Praveen S/O Basavaraj Sappanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Satish @ Satya @ Market Satya Vs the State through

Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd. Ors. Vs Smt. Ramakka @ Ramalamma W/O Late Malli and Ors.

Wazid Patel S/O Late Patel and Anr. Vs the State