Allowed

Sri Krishna Murthy v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2021CRL.P/3503/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner charged with attempted murder. Finding that the complainant had a prior relationship with the petitioner's sister, the Court held that the delay in filing the FIR and inconsistencies in the injury report weakened the prosecution case, allowing bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in Cr. No.108/2021 subject to executing a personal bond for Rs.2 lakhs and two solvent sureties for the like sum.

Sri Krishna Murthy Vs State of Karnataka by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3503/2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT JANNAGATTA VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 563 101

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M R, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOLAR RURAL POLICE KOLAR REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560001

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVASA, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.108/2021 REGISTERED BY KOLAR RURAL POLICE STATION, KOLAR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶19

learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent, and also perused the records.

¶20

This petition is filed by Accused No.1 in Crime No.108/2021 registered with Kolar Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of IPC under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner’s application under similar provisions before the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolar in Criminal Misc. Petition No.231/2021 is rejected by order dated 07.04.2021.

¶21

The prosecution’s case against the petitioner is that the complainant, a professional singer for over twenty years, was acquainted with the petitioner and his sister, Smt. Renukadevi. The complainant was in

¶22

¶23

relationship with Smt. Renukadevi for over eight to ten years despite the fact that he was already married. About twenty days prior to the incident, the petitioner visited the complainant’s wife/ other members of his family and informed them about the complainant’s relationship with his sister, Smt. Renukadevi and threatened of doing away with the complainant’s life if he again visited his sister. On 10.03.2021, Smt. Renukadevi contacted the complainant and insisted that he must visit her, and accordingly the complainant went to Jannaghatta Village.

¶24

The Prosecution’s further case is that Smt. Renukadevi was not at home and therefore the complainant was waiting outside. The petitioner and Accused No.2 [his mother] saw him and all of a sudden, came to him with two litres bottle of kerosene. The petitioner doused the complainant with kerosene and the Accused No.2 held the complainant so that the

¶25

¶26

petitioner could complete dousing the complainant with kerosene. Thereafter, the petitioner lit the complainant on fire. The complainant suffered multiple burn injuries, and Smt. Renukadevi who by then had returned, took the complainant to Vijaya Nursing Home for treatment. The complainant was later shifted to MVJ Medical College for further treatment by his wife and other family members at the request of Smt. Renukadevi.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged incident is on 10.03.2021 and the complaint is filed fifteen days later on 24.03.2021. The records indicate that when the complainant was admitted with Vijaya Nursing Home, it was reported that the complainant was injured in a stove blast. Neither the delay nor the change in the history of the injury is explained. The complainant has been discharged even from MVJ Hospital.

¶28

¶29

This Court, in the prevailing circumstances, and the fact that even according to the complainant, he was in relationship with the petitioner’s sister for over eight to ten years and the complaint is lodged after a lapse of fifteen days, is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Therefore the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Cr. No.108/2021 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge [Sr. Dn.,] & CJM Court, Kolar, subject to the petitioner executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs apart from offering two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court subject to the following conditions:

¶32

(1) The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the evidence, and any violation of this condition, or any further conditions

¶33

¶34

mentioned hereinafter, shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶35

(2) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing unless exempted by the Court.

¶36

(3) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without obtaining leave therefor from the Court.

¶37

(4) The petitioner shall furnish correct address to the concerned police, and shall inform them about the change in address, if any.

¶38

SD/JUDGE

¶39

AN/-

Sri Krishna Murthy v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishna Murthy v. State of Karnataka by

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

Kaveri Retreats and Resorts Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Y N Shankare Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatarayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Renukamba Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Rangegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chandraiah Vs State of Karnataka