Allowed

Rakesh B M v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2021CRL.P/3909/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed the criminal petition filed under Section 438 and read with Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Prayed for bail in a murder case where the petitioner is a student accused of killing his associate based on circumstantial evidence and recovered weapons.

What did the court decide?

The trial Court directed to release the petitioner on bail subject to execution of personal bond, sureties, prohibition on tampering with witnesses, and non-leave without permission.

Rakesh B M 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 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3909/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAKESH B.M. S/O. MANJUNATH N.B. AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O. MANJUNATH LAYOUT NEAR SILICON LAYOUT PARASANAHALLI ROAD DEVANAHALLI TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 572 110

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION DEVANAHALLI BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.4/2021 OF DEVANAHALLI P.S. BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 392, 302, 201 OF IPC.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail in Crime No.4/2021 registered by Devanahalli Police for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code now pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Devanahalli in C.C.No.3722/2021.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that one

¶23

Dharanikumar, the son of the deceased Nagaraj Murthy filed a complaint before the police on 16.01.2021 alleging that his father was went out of the house on 15.01.2021 at about 5.00 pm. Thereafter, his father did not returned to home. Later he went on searching his father. By next day morning at about 7.30 a.m., he has been informed by some person that a dead body was found at Silicon Layout bush. Accordingly, he went to there and found his father’s dead body. Therefore, he filed the complaint before the police against unknown person.

¶24

During the investigation, the police have arrested the accused on 21.01.2021 and seized the knife, bat gold ring and chain belongs to the deceased. The petitioner has been remanded to judicial custody. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner approached the Session Court

¶25

¶26

for bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

¶28

that the case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence, there is no eye witness to the incident except circumstantial evidence. One Muniraju stated that he has seen the accused who was going behind the deceased. Except that material, there is no other material on record. The petitioner is a B.Com Student and he is having excellent academic carrier with other sports activities. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for grant of bail.

¶29

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the bail petition.

¶30

Upon considering the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the case was

¶31

¶32

registered against unknown persons. The statement of CW17 which reveals that the accused was following the deceased on the said day on 15.01.2021. On the basis of the statement of CW17, the petitioner was later arrested and identified by him. The gold ring and chain of the deceased were seized by the police. The learned counsel submits that in the complaint, it was not mentioned any where about the golden armaments and does not reveals any golden armaments wore by the deceased while going out of the house. However, the golden ring and chain were recovered at the instance of the petitioner and the weapons like bat and knife were also seized by the police. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed.

¶33

The petitioner said to be a student and aged about 22 years. He said to be studied in Seshadhripuram First Grade College at Yelahanka New Town. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced

¶34

¶35

various certificates issued by the Ramakrishna Math and NSS. He has been nominated as Vice President of NSUI for Devanahalli Assembly. The petitioner also obtained so many certificates from various organization including Bengaluru University by appreciating his service for “Youth for Seva” and “Swatch Bharath”. He also obtained certificate from the Human Rights Commission for service to the public. The petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 6 months.

¶36

Looking into all the backgrounds and the case of the prosecution, without expressing any merits on the case, I am of the view that 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:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The criminal petition is allowed .

¶39

¶40

The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused on bail in Crime No.4/2021 registered by Devanahalli Police for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:-

¶41

i) Petitioner shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties 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; and

¶45

v) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission.

¶46

¶47

If any of the conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

KTY

Rakesh B M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh B M 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

Rachaiah Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Somanna

Anil Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Swaroop Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Govindappa Vs State of Karnataka by

Vaseem Pasha Vs State of Karnataka