Dismissed

Sri.Sandeep.a v. State by D.J.Halli Police Station

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2021CRL.P/4244/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a successive bail petition filed by an accused in a murder case. The court held that the COVID-19 pandemic did not constitute a changed circumstance sufficient to alter the earlier conclusion that regular bail was not applicable due to the heinous nature of the offence. The court directed that bail grounds be tested during the trial.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition seeking regular bail is dismissed; no relief granted to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Sri.Sandeep.a Vs State by D.J.Halli Police… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4244/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SANDEEP A., S/O LATE ARMUGAM AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT 18, 1^ST CROSS VISHVESHAVARA NAGAR NEAR MANGALA LAKSHMI TEMPLE SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 045. … PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT.NAGARATHNAMMA K.N., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE BY D.J.HALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGLURU-560 002. … RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.323/2019 (S.C.NO.514/2020) OF D.J.HALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

¶13

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition is a successive petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused in Crime No.323/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondentState.

¶18

This court, vide order 03.09.2020 rejected the

¶19

earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3495/2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the changed circumstance in the matter is that, in view of Covid-19 Pandemic and since

¶20

the petitioner is in judicial custody, there is no other person

¶21

in the family to take care of the livelihood of two children

¶22

¶23

and trial takes time and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶25

appearing for the respondent-State would submit that this Court, in paragraph No.7 of the order, while rejecting the earlier bail petition, considered the merits of the case and observed that the incident has taken place in the house of the petitioner himself and the eye-witness to the incident is none other than the wife of the petitioner. Apart from that, the recoveries which were made are of half burnt clothes, knife and beer bottle which were used for committing the offence and also the recoveries of other materials were made. It is also observed that the body of the deceased was found in the house of the petitioner itself and C.Ws.15 and 16 have spoken with regard to the fact that accused consumed alcohol and also purchased a beer bottle. Hence, there is no changed circumstance.

¶26

¶27

Having heard the respective counsel and also on

¶28

perusal of the material available on record, this Court, earlier vide order dated 03.09.2020 in Criminal Petition No.3495/2020 rejected the bail petition on the ground that the incident has taken place in the house of the petitioner himself and the eye-witness to the incident is none other than the wife of the petitioner. Apart from that recoveries are also made and C.Ws.15 and 16 have given the statement that the petitioner had purchased the alcohol and consumed the same which has also been witnessed by them. When such being the case and this Court has already come to the conclusion that the grounds urged by the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage and the contentions are to be tested in trial and unless the trial is conducted, in the absence of any changed circumstance, the Covid-19 Pandemic is not the ground to enlarge the petitioner in an heinous offence of committing the murder

¶29

¶30

and the same is not the changed circumstance. Hence, the

¶31

petitioner is not entitled for bail.

¶32

In view of the discussions made above, I pass

¶33

the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

(i) The criminal petition is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Sri.Sandeep.a v. State by D.J.Halli Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Sandeep.a v. State by D.J.Halli Police Station

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

B.N.Manjunath Vs H.N.Abishekgowda

Sri N B Vishwanath Vs Sri B Rajesh

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Reshma

Smt Nayana N. Pai @ Rajeevi Vs Sri Sanjeeva Shetty

Shanthamma Vs B Panchappa

Smt Monthi N Pai Vs Sri Sanjeeva Shetty