Allowed

Tejas T S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2020CRL.P/4505/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the bail application filed by the petitioner accused in a murder case under S.302 r/w 34 IPC. The court noted the release of a co-accused and the prevailing COVID situation as grounds to find no prejudice to the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to executing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 and marking attendance before the trial court police station for six months.

Tejas T S Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4505/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

TEJAS T.S, S/O SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O MARUTHI NILAYA, 6^TH MAIN, SADASHIVANAGAR, TUMKURU DIST-572 101.

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI LETHIF, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MYCO LAYOUT POLICE, R/P BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.

¶12

RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR. NO. 59/2020 OF MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 302 R/W SEC. 34 IPC & ETC.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION PERTAINING TO BENGALURU BENCH COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, COMING UP FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 u/s 439 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 59/2020 of Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable u/s 302 r/w Sec. 34 IPC. This petition has come as a successive bail application. Previously, the application filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 in Crl. P. No. 3226/2020 was dismissed by this Court on 24.07.2020.

¶19

The brief facts of the case as narrated and found in the order in Crl. P. No. 3226/2020 is as under:

¶20

“That a case came to be registered in Cr.No.59/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with 34 IPC against the petitioner and another. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant was working as a delivery boy in Zomato Company and he is a resident of N.S.Palya; heis familiar with one Sunil and he was spending time with him during his leisure time. That on 28.02.2020, the complainant was on duty in the early morning at about 5.00 a.m. and when he arrived near 1st Cross, 16th Main, 2nd stage, BTM Layout, Bengaluru, he received a message to his mobile for supply of food and when he

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

moved to collect the order from Annapoorneshwari Tiffin Centre, he noticed one person was sleeping facing his face towards ground and wascrumbling from pain. At that time, an ambulance came to the spot. The complainant parked his motorcycle and went to help the ambulance people to shift the injured into the ambulance. While shifting the injured, the complainant noticed that the injured was his friend Sunil suffering with bleeding injury on his stomach and intestine had come out and he was taken to Health India Hospital, Tavarakere and the said Hospital authorities referred to shift the injured to St. John’s Hospital on account of seriousness of the situation.

¶23

While the injured and the complainant were on the way to St. John’s Hospital, the complainant on enquiry came to know that one Tejas and his roommate Praveen quarreled with each other and in that incident Praveen stabbed the injured with knife on his stomach. 5. Based on the complaint, a case came to be registered and investigation was taken up. After completion of the investigation, final report was filed for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. Accused No.1 and CW-23 Vishal had developed enmityin relation to delivery of food order and Sunil was trying to compromise between them in a vacant place located in BTM Layout, N.S. Palya on 27.02.2020 between 9.00 p.m. and 1.00 a.m. At that time, Sunil quarrlled with accused No.2 and hit him from his hands. Due to this, Accused No.2 along with Accused No.1 came to Sairam

¶24

: 4 :

¶25

PG and had drinks with the deceased Sunil and thereafter went near Vegacity Mall and had food from the roadside (footpath) and again both went to PG around 4.00 am and the said incident took place during the said period. As stated above, both accused No.1 and accused No.2 grouped together when deceased went to hit accused No.2 with knife, accused No.2 escaped for which accused No.1 sustained injuries. Later, accused No.2 came and caught hold Sunil from back side, accused No.1 stabbed Sunil with knife after snatching the same from Sunil inflicting serious injuries andthereafter both accused Nos.1 and 2 ran away from the spot. Post mortem report is not available in the case. Being unable to recover from the injuries, Sunil died on 04.03.2020. The petitioner was arrested on 29.02.2020.”

¶26

¶27

The earlier petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 24.07.2020. The petitioner has filed this successive petition seeking enlargement on bail.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner appears through video conferencing submits that the accused No.2 was released on bail by this Court vide order dated

¶29

: 5 :

¶30

04.08.2020 in Crl. P. No. 3120/2020. The main allegation in the case is, accused No.2 caught hold of Sunil (deceased) from back side and the accused No.1 stabbed Sunil (deceased) after snatching knife from Sunil (deceased) and thereafter both the accused ran away.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that accused No.2 and the accused No.1 stand on the same footing. However, accused No.2 was released by this Court on 04.08.2020 in Crl. P. No. 3120/2020. The earlier application filed by the petitioner herein was rejected on 24.07.2020.

¶32

On the other hand, learned High Court Govt. Pleader opposes the bail application.

¶33

Considering the COVID situation and release of accused No.2, I find no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the petitioner is enlarged on bail. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶34

: 6 :

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 u/s 439 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 59/2020 of Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable u/s 302 r/w Sec. 34 IPC is allowed subject to the following conditions.

¶37

i. The petitioner-accused No.1 shall execute his personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with a likesum surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶38

ii. The petitioner-accused No.1 shall mark his attendance on first and third Saturday of every month between 9 PM to 10 PM before the concerned Police Station for a period of six months.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

bvv

Tejas T S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejas T S 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

Smt. Chikkabommamma Vs H C Kempegowda

Sri Govindappa S/O Ramachandrappa Vs R Ramanjaneyalu S/O R Ramanna

Sri M Ramesha S/O Subramanya Vs the Manager

Sri. Sugandaraju. N. R. Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Shree Balaji Timber Traders Vs M/S Dream Nest Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Munishamappa S/O Late Narayanappa Vs Sri v N Nagaraju S/O Late Narayanaswamy