Allowed

Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2021CRL.P/1938/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail in a murder case where the petitioner had been in judicial custody for over a year and a half. The court imposed strict conditions including a personal bond and attendance requirements without expressing an opinion on the merits of the murder charge.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in Crime No.1/2020 subject to personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 and strict conditions including periodic court attendance.

Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay 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 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1938/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SANJAY YADAV @ SANJAY S/O BHAGAVAN YADAV, AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.C-475, C-2, 13TH CROSS, PEENYA 4TH STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE-560058, PARMANANT AT CHOTASASARAM VILLAGE, UDVANTHPURA TALUK, BHOJPUR DISTRICT, BIHAR STATE, PIN-802 301. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI BASAVARAJU T A, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PEENYA POLICE, REP BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OFFICE AT HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR BEEDI, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE-560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶13

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.01/2020 (S.C.NO.779/2020) REGISTERED BY PEENYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC.

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused

¶18

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail in Crime No.1/2020 registered by Peenya Police for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶20

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that on the

¶22

complaint of one Mythri, the daughter of the deceased, filed on 2.1.2020, alleging that one Thippeswami was

¶23

working in Karnataka Engineering Private limited

¶24

¶25

Company, where the accused Sanjay Yadav was also working in the same company and on the evening of 1.1.2020, accused committed murder of the deceased by assaulting with hands and kicking, due to which he fell down on the stone and thereby died. The police after registering the case arrested the petitioner on 6.1.2020 and he was remanded to Judicial Custody.

¶26

The petitioner has approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail, which came to be rejected on 10.2.2021. Hence, he is before this Court by raising fresh and additional grounds.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

¶28

that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the quarrel took place on the spot when the deceased refused to allow the accused inside the factory and due to bit of anger, he has assaulted him by using the hands but there is no weapon used. Therefore, the offence will not fall under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but it may fall under the culpable homicide

¶29

¶30

not amounting to murder which is exception to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this court. He is in custody for more than one and half years.

¶31

Per contra, learned HCGP seriously objected for grant of bail by contending that if the petitioner is granted bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses and may abscond from the case.

¶32

Upon hearing the arguments of learned

¶33

counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP and on perusal of the records, it shows that of course, the complainant is not an eye witness to the incident but she came to the spot after getting information from the worker where it is revealed that her father was said to be assaulted by accused by hands and kicking on the legs and killed her father. Of course, there is no weapon used by accused and he was arrested and sent to Judicial Custody. The Post Mortem Report reveals

¶34

¶35

that death was due to head injury. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner is in custody for more than one and half years. The trial is not yet begun. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and by imposing certain conditions, if the petitioner/accused is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The criminal petition is allowed .

¶38

The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused on bail in Crime No.1/2020 registered by Peenya Police for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:-

¶39

i) Petitioner shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties (one surety from his native place and one surety from the local)

¶40

¶41

for likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶42

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶43

iii) Petitioner shall not indulge himself in similar offences strictly;

¶44

iv) Petitioner shall take the trial without causing any delay;

¶45

v) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission of the trial court; and

¶46

vi) Petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month on every second day of English calendar month till completion of the trial.

¶47

If any of the conditions are violated, the

¶48

prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

cbc

Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay 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

Pradeep Kumar R @ Pradeep Vs the Station House Officer

A P Abhijith Vs State by Basaralu Police

Krishna @ Krishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi Kumar Vs State of Karnataka by

Erappa @ Mukrappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Gangaraju Vs State of Karnataka by Its