Allowed

Mallikarjun @ Malli v. State by Kothanur

Karnataka HC28 Jul 2021CRL.P/2516/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Courts allowed bail to a murderer accused under IPC Section 302. The Court held that since the investigation was completed and charge sheet filed, detention was unnecessary for trial procedures and granted bail subject to conditions preventing absconding and witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed bail on bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties subject to conditions of appearing before court and not tampering with witnesses.

Mallikarjun @ Malli Vs State by Kothanur — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2516 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

MALLIKARJUN @ MALLI S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.5, RAMESH BUILDING 1^ST CROSS, NISARGA LAYOUT KANAKA SHREE LAYOUT BYRATHI VILLAGE KOTHANUR POST BENGALURU-560077.

¶9

PERMANENT R/O K P DODDI @ KALAPALLI HATTI GAMAGATTA MANDAL RAYADURGA TALUK ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT-510 051.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.KUMARAK.G., ADVOCATE) AND :

¶12

STATE BY KOTHANUR POLICE STATION BEGNALURU-560067. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

¶14

HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

… RESPONDENT (By Sri K.S.ABHIJITH., HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING THIS COURT TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.128/2020 OF KOTHANUR P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.128/2020 of Kothanur Police Station registered on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

¶19

Heard Sri.Kumara.K.G., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Abhijit., learned Counsel for the respondent -State.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶21

the petitioner is sole accused. He is innocent and has not

¶22

¶23

committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. Cw-2 and 3 given the statement that there was quarrel between the accused and deceased and they were residing in same building. Only on that basis the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner was apprehended on 06.10.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Since the investigation is already completed, the detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government

¶25

Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having

¶26

¶27

committed the offences. The deceased and the accused were residing together and since the deceased insisted the accused for returning coolie amount, the accused pushed the deceased from the 2^nd floor, which resulted in his death. CW-2 and 3 were also residing in the same building and they have given statements that the deceased and accused were staying together in the same building. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶28

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned

¶29

counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶30

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

¶31

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

the following:

R E A S O N S

The allegation made against the petitioner is of serious nature. Admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody is not required for any purpose except to safeguard the interest of the witnesses and to ensure his presence before the Trial Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is 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 petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶36

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶37

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition is allowed.

¶40

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.128/2020 of Kothanur Police Station on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two

¶41

¶42

Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶43

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

RKA

Mallikarjun @ Malli v. State by Kothanur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallikarjun @ Malli v. State by Kothanur

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

Mr Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Ali Akbar @ Ali Umar Vs State of Karnataka

Ramanna @ Ramachandraiah Vs State by Excise Police

Sri Mohammed Aleemulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Siddanath Gangadhar Lavate Vs the State of Karnataka

Swamy @ Vinayaswamy Vs State of Karnataka