Allowed

Sanni S/O Venkataranagayya Mothukuri @ Mothukuri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2021CRL.P/101299/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a second bail petition for an accused charged with murder and grievous hurt. Granting bail on parity grounds after bail was granted to a co-accused, despite previous rejections, the court imposed strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to personal bond of one lakh with two sureties and strict conditions including no tampering with witnesses and no leaving jurisdiction.

Sanni S/O Venkataranagayya Mothukuri @… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3^rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101299/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SANNI S/O VENKATARNAGAYYA MOTUKURI @ MOTHUKURI RAJASHEKAR, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: NO.275, GANDHIWADA, NEAR A.B.M. CHURCH, GANDHI WADA, JANATA COLONY, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, (NOW HE IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. T.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HUBBALLI KESHWAPUR P.S., R/BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD.

¶12

.. RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL IN SC. NO.144/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI

¶15

¶16

(ARISING OUT OF HUBBALLI KESHWAPUR P.S. CRIME NO.4/2019) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 326, 307 AND 302 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in Crime No.4/2019 registered by the Hubballi Keshwapur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity).

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that on 13.01.2019 at about 7.30 pm when the complainant along with his friend Uttam Gopal Bongle after consuming alcohol went to Railway ground to see the dance program and when the program came to an end and the public were moving out of the ground, at that time, the friend of the complainant came back sustaining an injury on his neck when he went to bring the vehicle from the parking slot. It was alleged that somebody has slit his throat. At that time, three

¶21

¶22

persons ran away from the place. The injured was shifted to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on 14.01.2019. The petitioner is arrested by the police, during investigation, on 15.01.2019 and he was remanded to judicial custody. He approached the learned Sessions Judge in SC No.144/2019 which came to be rejected on 06.06.2020 as well as this Court in Criminal Petition No.101120/2019 which also came to be rejected on 15.07.2019. Hence, the petitioner is before this court by filing this successive bail petition.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has filed this successive bail petition on the ground that this Court has granted bail to accused No.3 in Criminal Petition No.101590/2020 on 04.01.2021 who is having similar overt-act as that of the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody for more than two years. Investigation is completed and his presence is no more required. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-Stated objected to the bail petition on the ground that the bail petition earlier filed by the petitioner had been rejected

¶25

¶26

by this Court on 15.07.2019 and there is no fresh ground made out by the petitioner to consider this successive bail petition. If the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond and tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶27

Upon considering the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the documents, of course, the coordinate Bench of this Court, earlier had rejected the bail petition filed by the petitioner on 15.07.019 about 1½ years back and now this Court has granted bail to accused No.3-Michael Samuel Koppulla in Criminal Petition No.101590/2020 on 04.01.2021. The main allegation is against accused No.1 who is said to have assaulted the deceased on his neck with a knife whereas accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted with knife on the shoulder of the deceased. The overt-act attributed against the present petitioner/accused No.2 and accused No.2 are similar to each other. Accused N.3 is already granted bail by this Court. The petitioner is in custody for almost two years. Except for trial, the presence of the petitioner is no more required.

¶28

¶29

Considering the ground of parity, I hold that the

¶30

petitioner has made out a fresh ground for grant of bail. The apprehension of the prosecution can be safeguarded by imposing stringent conditions, if the petitioner is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case.

¶31

Accordingly, I pass the following order.

¶32

The Criminal Petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.4/2019 registered by the Hubballi Keshwapur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, subject to the following conditions:

¶33

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶34

ii. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶35

iii. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offence.

¶36

iv. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without prior permission of the trial court.

¶37

¶38

v. The petitioner shall take the trial without causing any delay.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

kmv

Sanni S/O Venkataranagayya Mothukuri @ Mothukuri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanni S/O Venkataranagayya Mothukuri @ Mothukuri 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.Aduri W/O Mulami Adivasi Rajput Vs the State of Karnataka

Ishwar S/O. Ramappa Kumbar Vs the State of Karnataka

Bande Navaz Rashmi S/O Vajirsab Rashmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Basappa Mahadevappa Kadlikoppa Vs the State of Karnataka

Nana Kale S/O. Bhaskar Kale Vs the State of Karnataka

Vinod S/O. Murari Savant @ Jamadar Vs State of Karnataka