Dismissed

Balappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2017CRL.P/200829/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka Criminal Bench dismissed a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by an accused in a murder case. The Court held that despite allegations of fabrication, the extra-judicial confession and recovery of incriminatingarticles were sufficient prima facie material to deny bail in a heinous offence.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition dismissed; accused to remain in custody.

Balappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.200829/2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

Balappa S/o Late Shankrappa Sunkanur Age about 52 years Occ: Agriculture & Coolie R/o: Udbal-B Village Tq: Manvi, Dist: Raichur Karnataka

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri Ishwar Raj S. Chowdapur, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

The State of Karnataka [Through Kavithal Police Station] Represented by Addl. State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

(By Sri P.S. Patil, HCGP)

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to release the petitioner on bail in C.C.No.224/2017 (Crime No.140/2016 of Kavithal Police Station) which is pending before JMFC Manvi, Dist: Raichur,

¶16

¶17

which is registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.140/2016 of Kavithal Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶21

Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, the complainant had been to her daughter’s house at Kushtagi from Udbaal village on 19.12.2016. On 21.12.2016, one Sangmesh (CW.8) informed that Bassangouda was not feeling well and come immediately to Udball village. Immediately, along with her daughter Manjamma and her husband Chanappa, the complainant proceeded to Udbaal village and after reaching the house, the said Sangmesh informed that somebody has assaulted her husband on face and neck

¶22

¶23

and committed the murder. It is further alleged that one Muddegouda was loving the daughter of the petitioner by name Renuka. The said Muddegouda offered Renuka for sex. It is further alleged that the said Muddegouda was doing the said act by the support of the deceased. At the time of this incident, the petitioner had been to Bangalore for livelihood, but his wife and children were sent to Chikkadinni village. It is further alleged that the alleged incident has taken place during the intervening night of 20 and 21.12.2016. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered against the accused persons and on the basis of the voluntary statement, the petitioner has been apprehended and he is in custody.

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.

¶25

¶26

The main grounds urged by the learned

¶27

counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence alleged against him. The name of the petitioner is not found in the complaint filed by the complainant. It is further contended that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and only on the basis of extra judicial statement said to have been made before CW.26, the petitioner has been arrested and the voluntary statement of the petitioner has been recorded. It is further contended that already investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, therefore, the petitioner is not required for the purpose of further investigation or interrogation. It is further contended that the only allegation made against the petitioner is that, he was supporting Muddegouda, as he was loving the daughter of the petitioner and in that context he has been falsely roped into the said crime. It is further contended that the petitioner has got both movable and

¶28

¶29

immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of he being absconded. It is further contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶30

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would contend that the voluntary statement of the petitioner has been recorded after apprehension and on the basis of the voluntary statement, the blood stained clothes, which were worn by the accused and the axe, which has been used for the commission of offence have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He would further contend that an extra judicial confession has been made by the petitioner in front of CW.26. All the material clearly indicates the serious act of the petitioner for having caused the death of the deceased.

¶31

¶32

He would further contend that the alleged offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He would further contend that at this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

I have gone through the copy of the complaint

¶34

and the charge sheet material produced along with the petition.

¶35

By close reading of the charge sheet

¶36

material, there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The only material available before this Court is the extra judicial confession made by the petitioner/accused in front of CW.26, the voluntary statement of the petitioner/accused and recovery of blood stained clothes and axe. On perusal of the said records, it clearly indicates that the deceased has been brutally assaulted and he has died because of the

¶37

¶38

injuries sustained by him to the brain and the said injuries are also corroborating with the voluntary statement said to have been given by the petitioner/accused and the recovery has also been done at the instance of the petitioner regarding the blood stained cloths and axe. When there is prima facie material to show that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence of murder, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, under such circumstances, I feel that it is not just and proper to consider his bail application.

¶39

Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

LG Ct: VK

Balappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balappa 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

Sri.Madanan Pillai S S/O. Sreedaran Pillai Vs the State through

Earappa and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Hussainsab S/O Khasimsab Vs Siddappa @Siddanna S/O Nagappa.Hirekurubar and Anr.

Fayaz Husen S/O Makbool @ Khabula Husen and Ors. Vs the State through Raichur West Police Station

Javeed S/O Nabilal Bagewadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Akram Shah Vs the State through