In a bail cancellation petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. regarding a murder case, the High Court held there was no material showing violation of bail conditions or misconduct during bail, distinguishing grant from cancellation of bail.
Petition for cancellation of bail filed by the State was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101324/2020
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH POLICE sub-inspector, KUMTA POLICE STATION, DISTRICT-UTTARA KANNADA,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
.. PETITIONER
(BY MS. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP ADVOCATE)
AND:
HARISH S/O. SUBRAY HEGDE, AGE-27 YEARS, OCC-RYOT, AGRICULTURE, R/O.SOMANHAHALLI, UNCHALLI, BANAVASI VILLAGE, TQ-SIRSI, DIST-UTTARA KANNADA, PIN-581401.
.. RESPONDENT
(BY SRI A.R.PATIL,ADVOCATE)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF CR.P.C. AND PRAYED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO.27/2019 DATED 09.09.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 364, 120(B), 302 AND 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND DIRECT THE CONCERNED POLICE AUTHORITIES TO ARREST THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.2 AND COMMIT HIM TO CUSTODY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This petition filed by the petitioner/State under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent/accused No.2 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar dated 09.09.2019 in Sessions Case No.27/2019.
3
to commit the murder of Vishweshwar Bhat and agreed to pay `30,000/- to accused No.3 for committing the murder. On 16.10.2018, the accused No.2 dropped the accused No.3 near the house of Vishweshwar Bhat, wherein he was convinced the Vishweshwar Bhat to come on his own motorcycle to perform pooja in the land of accused No.3. The accused Nos.1 and 2 followed the deceased and accused No.3 on their motorcycle. Then, the accused No.1 assaulted the Vishweshwar Bhat on his head with an iron rod. Accused No.2 held the Vishweshwar Bhat and accused No.1 strangulated him by pressing his neck with his foot. After committing the murder, they thrown the dead body in a well and buried the dead body by throwing stones and mud and cleaned the area where the blood of deceased is spilled and destroyed the evidence and fed away. After arrest of the accused Nos.1 and 2, police recovered the incriminating articles and they have been remanded to judicial custody. Respondent/accused No.2 filed bail application before the Sessions Judge under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., which came to be allowed by imposing certain conditions and he has been released on bail vide order dated 09.09.2019. Assailing granting of bail, the State filed this petition for cancellation of bail.
4
5
absolutely there is no violation of conditions imposed in the bail order to this respondent. In the other case, which was relied by the learned HCGP, this accused has been acquitted by the Sessions Judge. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6
(iii) The accused No.2 shall not make any efforts of tampering with or destruction of prosecution evidence.
7
Administration) Vs. Sanjay Gandhi, 1978(2) SCC 411 held as under:
“Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel the bail already granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large by permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. (Emphasis supplied)”
“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise
8
its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter or course. Throughout the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting 7 of 9 bail; they are :
9
charge.
Accordingly, I pass the following :
ORDER
Petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
ckk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail granted by the Sessions Court in a murder case should be cancelled upon the State's petition.
Whether there were any supervening circumstances or violation of bail conditions vitiating the trial court's decision to grant bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Sanjay GandhiExplained¶41
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Sanjay Gandhi, 1978(2) SCC 411 · Who else cites this
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh RanjanExplained¶44
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another 2004 (7) SCC 528 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH POLICE
HARISH S/O. SUBRAY HEGDE
K. NATARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
