Dismissed

Sri Naveen M v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2021CRL.P/1088/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused in a murder case. The court held that releasing the petitioner would pose a likelihood of tampering with prosecution witnesses, as the complainant and other eyewitnesses are family members, and trial had already commenced.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the criminal petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for enlargement on bail.

Sri Naveen M Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1088/2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI NAVEEN M AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O DHARNAPPA POOJARY R/AT MELINA MUGGA HOUSE KARAYA VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. -574 201.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY. T., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND STATE OF KARNATAKA UPPINANGADI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITION ON BAIL IN CR.NO.61/2020 (S.C.NO.73/2020) OF UPPINANGADI POLICE STATION, D.K. DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 READ WITH 34 OF IPC. THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALORE HAS DISMISSED THE BAIL PETITION ON 07.01.2021 IN S.C.NO.73/2020.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in Crime No.61/2020 registered by the Uppinangady Police, D.K. for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶19

The brief facts of the case of is that the complainant one Smt. Rajeevi, the daughter of the deceased, filed a complaint before the Police on 15.06.2020 alleging that accused Nos.1 and 2 are the brothers of the complainant and sons of the deceased and on 14.06.2020, they went to the house of their uncle to attend to some function and returned late in the night. The door was locked by the deceased from inside and they knocked the door on 11.45 p.m. Her father started abusing the accused persons in filthy language and was not ready to allow them inside the house and also asked to go out of the house. At 12.15 a.m., when the door was opened by the deceased, accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with sickle and caused injuries on his head. When he fell down, accused No.2 sat on the chest of the deceased

¶20

¶21

and started assaulting the deceased stating that the deceased must die. Again accused No.1 assaulted on the leg of the deceased and in spite of the protest by the complainant, the accused persons committed the murder of their father and her husband went to bring her uncle, by that time, the accused persons threw away the weapons and ran away from the spot. After registering the case, the Police arrested the accused persons on 15.06.2020. After the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed on 12.08.2020. The accused persons moved bail petition before the Sessions Judge, which came to be dismissed. Hence, the petitioneraccused No.2 is before this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and in fact, there was no motive or attempt to commit the murder of their own father but the complaint goes to show that for silly reason, the father of the complainant picked up quarrel with the accused persons and in a spur of the moment, the accused persons assaulted their father which cannot be considered as the offence under Section 302 of IPC, but it may fall under

¶23

¶24

Section 304 Part I or Part II of IPC. The investigation is complete and the charge sheet is filed. The case was also committed to the Sessions Court and the trial has also been commenced. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

¶25

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that there is a prima facie case made out against the accused persons for having committed the murder of their father. The complainant and her mother are the eyewitnesses and they have given statements before the Police that the accused persons committed the murder of the deceased. Even after the deceased falling down, the accused persons started assaulting the deceased with deadly weapons. If bail is granted to the petitioner who is accused No.2, there is likelihood of the petitioner tampering the prosecution witnesses. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.

¶26

Considering the arguments and on perusal of the record, it goes to show that admittedly the deceased is the own father of accused Nos.1 and 2, this petitioner is accused No.2 and the complaint is filed by the own sister of the

¶27

¶28

accused persons. The eyewitness is the husband of the complainant and another eyewitness is their mother-Kusuma belonging to one family. The investigation is already completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Learned counsel submits that last week, the trial also commenced.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused, complainant and the deceased were all from the same family, if the petitioner is released on bail, the possibility of the petitioner tampering the prosecution witnesses is not ruled out. Trial has already been commenced. Such being the case, considering the bail petition and expressing any opinion at this stage will prejudice the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Sri Naveen M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Naveen M v. 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. Ajay Gupta S/O Ram Avad Gupta Vs Sri. Banakar Manjunath S/O Bheemeppa

Sri. Ajay Gupta S/O Ram Avad Gupta Vs Sri. Banakar Manjunath S/O Bheemeppa

The State of Karnataka, Vs Basavaraj Nagappa Bawalatti

Vinod Kumar @ Vinod @ Tollu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Chandrika K P Vs State by Mandya West Police

Mr. Mohammed Harshad Vs the State of Karnataka by