Allowed

Manjunath @ Kadamanja S/O Shyamanna Nayak @Bhavani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2018CRL.P/100498/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to two accused persons in an IPC 302 case under Section 439 Cr.P.C. despite a prior rejection order, on grounds of parity and detention length. Bail granted subject to a personal bond and conditions preventing witness tampering and jurisdiction exit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail via personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 each with one surety, subject to non-tampering with witnesses and not leaving Koppal District.

Manjunath @ Kadamanja S/O Shyamanna Nayak… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

¶7

Criminal Petition No.100498/2018

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MANJUNATH @ KADAMANJA S/O: SHYAMANNA NAYAK @ BHAVANI, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HAMALI WORK, R/O: HULIHYDER, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶10

YAMANOORAPPA S/O; MARAPPA CHANNADASAR AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: TOYS SELLING BUSINESS IN FAIR R/O: HULIHYDER, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶11

…..PETITIONERS (BY SRI C.R.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. DHARWAD BENCH.

¶14

…….RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL ONLY TO THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT IN S.C.NO.49/2015 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, KOPPAL (CRIME NO.63/2015 OF KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506, 120-B, 109, 302, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.63/2015 of Koppal Town P.S. for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 120-B, 109, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶22

The substance of the complaint is extracted from the orders passed by this Court is as under;

¶23

The complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent Police on 18.02.2015 alleging that on

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

11.01.2015, the Gadag Railway Police have registered a case under UDR No.2/2015 in connection with the death of his brother and she was informed by her younger brother that the dead body of the deceased was found on the railway track and she further alleged in the complaint that as she came to the place late and in the meanwhile one Gudadappa R/o.Kanakapur and Ashok of Huli Haider brought fire wood and in the presence of the family members of the complainant set fire to the dead body of the deceased without giving any sort of suspicion. It is further alleged in the complaint that when the complainant enquired, she came to know that some days ago the deceased had given interview in television media about illegal activities carried out by the accused No.2 and thereafter on 09.01.2015 in the afternoon the accused Nos.1 and 2 had come to the house of the complainant and threatned the deceased with dire consequences. On 09.01.2015, accused No.2 took him

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

to Basarihalli village and introduced him to some unknown persons and after that incident, the deceased is suspecting danger to his life. On 11.01.2015 at about 10.00 a.m., deceased left the house in order to go to Gangavathi and the accused followed him.

¶28

The deceased apprehended danger to his life and called police over phone seeking for help and tried to escape from the accused and when the deceased came near Koppal Railway station, he was chased by accused No.5 assaulted the deceased with a reaper over his head, due to which he fell unconscious by the side of railway track. Then the accused brought him and made him to lie down on a railway track while he was in unconscious and thereby a goods train ran over him causing his death. The body was cut into two pieces.

¶29

: 5 :

¶30

Upon information, the sister of the deceased and others came to the spot. They thought that it is a railway accident. UDR crime was registered in Gadag Railway police station in UDR No.2/2015. During the inquest proceedings over the dead body, a mobile and a death note were seized from the pant pocket of the deceased. In the death note, it was written that in the event of his death these accused should be held responsible. A complaint came to be lodged by Manjula sister of the deceased thereby Crime No.63/2015 came to be registered in Koppal Town police Station. The investigation did not progress. It was handed over to CID. During investigation, all these accused were arrested. Their voluntary statements came to be recorded. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

¶32

that the petitioners are innocent and they are in

¶33

: 6 :

¶34

judicial custody and the matter is under trial. Hence, prays for allowing the bail petition.

¶35

The learned HCGP opposes the bail application

¶36

prays for dismissal of the bail petition.

¶37

The petitioners herein have unsuccessfully moved the bail application earlier. However, in the later circumstances this Court allowed the bail application of other accused persons and the certified copies are made available by the learned counsel for the petitioners in respect of accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 in Criminal Petition No.102627/2017 and the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in Criminal Petition No.100309/2018. Similarly, another certified copy of the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.101367/2016 is produced before this Court, wherein the present petitioners Manjunath and Yamanoorappa, moved the bail application and this Court rejected the bail application and paragraph No.8 of the said order is as under;

¶38

: 7 :

¶39

“In that view of the matter, this Court feel that the present petition is required to be dismissed. While doing so, it is observed that not only the petitioners herein but any other accused in the aforesaid proceedings shall not be entitled to seek their enlargement on bail until the trial in S.C.No.49/2015 is complete, for the reason that any one of them being let out on bail are likely to hamper the entire prosecution beyond redemption. This observation is necessary not only in the petition filed by the petitioners herein but also in the petition if any to be filed by other accused.

¶40

With the aforesaid observation, this petition is dismissed”.

¶41

The prohibitory orders cannot be claimed against a person who is not before this Court nor heard.

¶42

In the context and circumstances of the case, considering the period of detention of the accused in judicial custody and on the ground of parity, the petitioners are granted the relief of bail. Thus, no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution in case the bail petition is allowed. However, the apprehension of the prosecution would be resolved by imposing conditions. Hence, the following:

¶43

: 8 :

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The petition filed by the petitioners under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

¶46

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.63/2015 of Koppal Town P.S. for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 120-B, 109, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC, on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court subject to the following conditions:-

¶47

a) The petitioners shall not tamper or terrorize any of the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶48

b) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Koppal District without permission of the trial Court

¶49

SD/JUDGE

¶50

msr

Manjunath @ Kadamanja S/O Shyamanna Nayak @Bhavani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath @ Kadamanja S/O Shyamanna Nayak @Bhavani 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

Subbanagouda S/O Ramanagoud Badnur Vs Renuka W/O Late Babu @ Baabugouda Badnur

Sumangala Kom Mallanagouda Patil Vs Mallanagouda Rudragouda Patil

Smt. Usha W/O Anilkumar Naik Vs Shri Anilkumar S/O Narayan Naik

Mohammad Sameer S/O. Hussainbasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Vijayendra S/O Prahladacharya Panchamukhi Vs Smt. Renuka W/O Vijayendar Panchamukhi

Sri. Shekarappa S/O Shanmukhappa Harlapur Vs the State of Karnataka