In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for murder charges, the Karnatak High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the accused was not entitled to release despite circumstantial evidence due to risks of witness tampering.
The criminal petition is dismissed; bail application rejected.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1388 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
Sri. Srikanta V @ Kanta S/o H. Venkatesh Aged about 20 years R/at 1st Cross Near Anjanaya Swamy Temple Kurabara Pette Kolar Town, Kolar – 563101.
…Petitioner
(By Sri. Nanjunda Gowda M.R - Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka By K.R.Puram Police Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Bengaluru – 560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail in C.C.No.50188/2021 (Crime No.384/2020 of K.R.Puram
2
Police) for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC, which is pending on the file of the 10th Addl. CMM, Bengaluru Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru City.
This Criminal petition coming on for Orders , this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in Crime No.384/2020 registered by the K.R.Puram Police, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read of IPC.
3
went upstairs hurriedly and after sometime, he heard some noise/shouting of wife of Harsha and the courier person. After few minutes, the said person came down and ran away. Later the complainant went upstairs and saw through window the wife of Harsha was lying on the ground without any movements. He peeped through window and door, but there was no sound. Thereafter, he saw that she was found dead and case was registered against the unknown person. During the investigation on the very next day on 01.11.2020, the police arrested this petitioner and on interrogation, he confessed the offence committed by him and it was revealed that the said Harsha, the tenant of the complainant said to have married one Chaithra, the elder sister of the accused and having one child and after that the said Harsha came in contact with deceased Srisaila and married her and kept in the house of complainant as tenant. Therefore, the brother of said Chithra came and committed murder by strangulating the deceased with help of a rope. The police after investigation have filed the charge sheet. The petitioner moved bail petition before the Sessions
4
Judge, which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioneraccused is before this Court.
5
up after asking the complainant and later ran away and thereafter, the deceased was found dead. Therefore, if bail is granted to the petitioner who is accused No.1, there is likelihood of the petitioner tampering the prosecution witnesses and he may abscond from the case. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.
6
of this accused and later marrying the deceased. Of course, the case is based upon circumstantial evidence. One of the witness is the wife of Harsha who is none other than the sister of the accused. The independent witness is only the owner of the house who saw the accused while going to the house of the deceased. If the petitioner is released on bail, the possibility of the petitioner tampering the prosecution witnesses and threatening the witnesses is not ruled out. Though the petitioner’s counsel contends the offence may not fall under Section 302 of IPC, but the fact remains that the accused himself came under the guise of the courier person and went upstairs and after committing the murder he ran away. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is motive or intention to commit murder of deceased – Srisaila as she is married to the brother-in-law of the accused and sister of the accused was the beneficiary out of the murder of the deceased. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that that the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
7
Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
DKB/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case.
Whether the likelihood of tampering with witnesses precludes grant of bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Srikanta V @ Kanta S/o H. Venkatesh
The State of Karnataka
K. NATARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
