Allowed

Smt Eramma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2021CRL.P/3476/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in a murder case (Section 302 IPC). Court allowed bail after noting no need for further investigation and petitioner's clean antecedents, subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail with a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions against re-offending, tampering, and guaranteeing appearance.

Smt Eramma Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3476 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT. ERAMMA W/O LATE EARANNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS PRESENT ADDRESS: R/AT C/O MAHADEVA'S LABOUR SHED BACKSIDE OF BIOCON NEAR GOODNIGHT TECHNO MIX COMPANY JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK KARNATAKA - 560 099. PERMANENT ADDRESS: AROLI VILLAGE, MANVI TALUK RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 203. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJ D., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND :

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JIGANI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶10

(BY SRI. H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.91/2020 (S.C.NO.5062/2020) REGISTERED BY JIGANI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC.

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner - accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 91/2020 of Jigani Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant - Urkundamma.

¶16

Heard Sri. Nataraj D. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.R.Showri, learned Counsel for the respondent - State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶18

the petitioner is the sole accused. She is innocent and law abiding citizen. She has not committed any offence as alleged. She has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. She was apprehended on 16.05.2020 and since then she is in judicial custody. It is alleged that the petitioner assaulted her husband with hollow block and caused his death. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the

¶19

¶20

deceased is a drunkard and was harassing the petitioner. Neither there was any motive, nor any preparation for causing the death of the death of the deceased. At the most, the incident must have occurred as a result of sudden and grave provocation. There are no eyewitnesses to spoke about the incident. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent. Since the investigation is already completed, detention of the petitioner in custody is not required, except to ensure her presence before the trial Court. She is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to 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.

¶21

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. He submits that the petitioner is booked for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. After

¶22

¶23

investigation, charge sheet has been filed. It was only the deceased and the petitioner, who were staying in the house, where the deceased found dead with fatal injuries on his head. The prosecution is relying on clinching circumstantial evidence. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶24

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

¶25

“Whether the petitioner is entitled

¶26

for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶27

My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the

¶28

following:

¶29

R E A S O N S

¶30

The materials on record disclose that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence, which is punishable either with death

¶31

¶32

or imprisonment for life. Even though there are no eyewitnesses, the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence. Under such circumstance, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely implicated in the matter without any basis, cannot be accepted at this stage. However, it is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation. Except to ensure her presence before the trial Court, she is not required to be detained in custody. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. Admittedly, the charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement of her right to life and liberty. 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.

¶33

Accordingly, I answer the above point in affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶34

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petition is allowed.

¶37

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.91/2020 of Jigani 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:

¶38

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

NR/-

Smt Eramma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Eramma v. the 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

Rahul Kumar @ Chote Lal @ Lal Vs State of Karnataka

Sahil Mohammed Vs the State by

Sri. Mehboob Khan Vs State by Holenarsipura Town Police Station

Syed Suhail @ Suhail @ Papaya Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Sharukh Khan

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Umesha