Allowed

Basavaraju S Hosamani v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2021CRL.P/2114/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding accused charged with culpable homicide (Section 304 IPC) and murder (Section 302 IPC). The High Court allowed bail by imposing a fixed bond and conditions to prevent witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail in crime no 226/2020 on bond of Rs 200000 with two sureties subject to conditions.

Basavaraju S Hosamani Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2114 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

BASAVARAJU S HOSAMANI S/O SHIVARAYA HOSAMANI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.18, NEAR BUS STATION BALAGERE VILLAGE, VARTHURU HOBLI BENGALURU-560 087.

¶9

AZIZ PASHA S/O SYED HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL KODLI VILLAGE & POST, CHINCHOLI TALUK KALBURGI DISTRICT-585 307.

¶10

YALLALINGA TALAWAR @ YALLAPPA S/O SABANNA TALAWAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT THONASAHALLI VILLAGE MALAKONDA POST, CHITTAPURA TALUK KALBURGI DISTRICT-585 211.

¶11

… PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI: B.ANAND, ADVOCATE (PH))

¶13

AND :

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VARTHURU PS NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI: H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP (PH))

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.226/2020 OF VARTHUR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.226/2020 of Varthur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Smt.Anuradha.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that, Smt.Anuradha w/o late Manjunath Reddy filed the first information against unknown persons stating that on 17.11.2020 her son Abilash had gone out of the house, but had not returned back. On 18.11.2020 at about 1.00 p.m., she received information regarding the death of her son. Immediately, she rushed to the spot belonging to one Acharappa, beside chromo road, Amani Bellanduru Khane and found her son Abilash lying in a pool of blood. The

¶21

¶22

head of her son was smashed with a cement block and the plastic cover was tied to the head. The dead body with the plastic cover covering the head was thrown inside the bushes. Thus, she suspected that some persons with an intention caused death and thrown the dead body inside the bushes. Therefore, the informant requested the police

¶23

to register the case and to investigate into the matter. Accordingly, the police registered the case and took up investigation.

¶24

Heard Sri. B.Anand, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.R.Showri, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶25

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted

¶26

that these petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3. They are innocent and law abiding citizen. They have not committed any offence as alleged. They have been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. They were apprehended on 23.11.2020 and since then they are in

¶27

¶28

judicial custody. The first information is against unknown persons. There are no eye-witnesses to the incident. The allegation against accused No.1 is that he instigated accused Nos.2 and 3 to commit the offence. It is stated that the gold chain of the deceased-Abilash was recovered at the instance of accused No.2 and there is no recovery from accused No.3. Except voluntary statement of these accused before the Investigating Officer, there is absolutely no materials to connect them to the offence in question. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Since the investigation is already completed, detention of the petitioners in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioners are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title of the petition and are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶29

Per contra, learned High Court Government

¶30

Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious

¶31

¶32

allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offence. Accused No.1 is the son-in-law of the informant and he has instigated accused Nos.2 and 3, who are supari killers, to cause the death of his own brother-in-law. The motive for the offence according to the Investigating Officer is that, the deceased has interfered with the Management of the properties belonging to the informant. The hammer that was used to commit the offence was recovered at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶34

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶35

¶36

My answer to the above point is in the ‘Affirmative’

¶37

for the following:

¶38

R E A S O N S

¶39

The allegations made against the

¶40

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are of serious nature. Though the first information is against unknown persons, during investigation, accused Nos.1 to 3 were apprehended on 23.11.2020. It is stated that incriminating materials were seized at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3. The allegation against accused No.1 is that he is the son-in-law of the informant and he instigated accused Nos.2 and 3/supari killers, to cause the death of the deceased. Admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, detention of the petitioners in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioners may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶41

¶42

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶43

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The petition is allowed.

¶46

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.226/2020 of Varthur Police Station on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶47

a). The petitioners shall not commit similar offences;

¶48

b). The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶49

c). The petitioners shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

SMJ

Basavaraju S Hosamani v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavaraju S Hosamani 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

Shanmukh @ Sanamukh Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankar @ Jangli Vs the State through

Vijay Laximi @ Vijaykumari Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Kalpana Vs State of Karnataka

Naveen Kumar S M Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr.Goutham Krishna Vs the State of Karnataka