Allowed

Girish v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2021CRL.P/4594/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail to the petitioner in a murder case. The court held that the petitioner's presence is no longer required as the case is committed for trial and no prejudice would result from his release. Bail was granted subject to execution of a bond and specific conditions including non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The trial Court directed to release the petitioner on bail by executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties and adhering to conditions regarding witness interference and jurisdiction.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4594 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GIRISH S/O. ARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANAKA NAGARA, SEEGEHALLI, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI NATARAJ D., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, H.C.G.P.)

¶15

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.160 OF 2018 REGISTERED BY TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE IPC.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for granting regular bail in Crime No.160 OF 2018 registered by Tavarakere Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

¶21

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that, on 15-5-2018, Shekar lodged a complaint alleging that on 14-5-2018 at about 9:00 p.m., when himself returning

¶23

¶24

home finishing his work, Mahesha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) also accompanied him. When they reached the house, they saw the petitioner, Venkobarao and another one person consuming alcohol in front of his house. When the deceased had gone to toilet, the petitioner kicked the toilet door and asked him to come out. After coming out of the bathroom, the deceased told the complainant that these people would create trouble and left the place. On the next day, the deceased was found dead by sustaining head injuries. After lodging of the complaint, this petitioner has been arrested. During investigation, the petitioner, in his voluntary statement, has stated that he alone picked up quarrel with the deceased and committed his murder by throwing stone on his head. Therefore, Venkoba Rao and Krishna were made as witnesses. Thereafter, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, this petition.

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended

¶27

that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no eyewitness to the incident. The petitioner has been arrested only on suspicious ground. There is no intention or motive to commit the murder of the deceased. Even otherwise, the petitioner was in drunken state. Therefore, Section 300 of the IPC may attract. The petitioner is in custody for more than two years and is ready to abide by any of the conditions to be imposed by the Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶28

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the bail petition and contended that, this petitioner along with Venkoba Rao and Krishna were last seen together with the deceased. There is material placed on record to show that the petitioner committed the murder of the deceased. If the petitioner is granted bail,

¶29

¶30

he may abscond from the case. Hence, she prayed for rejecting the petition.

¶31

Upon considering the arguments and perusal of the record, admittedly, the case was registered against the petitioner and other two persons on suspicious ground expressed by the complainant. Later, it was revealed that the petitioner alone committed the murder of the deceased. There is no eyewitness to the incident. Of course, there is last seen theory spoken by the friends of the petitioner with the deceased. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed in the year 2018 itself. The petitioner is in custody for more than two and half-ayear and his presence is no more required. Case of the petitioner is already committed and pending for trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the accused was in drunken state when he committed the offence and he has been granted bail. Therefore, whether

¶32

¶33

the offence falls under Section 302 of the IPC or exception to Section 300 of the IPC is a matter of trial. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, if bail is granted to the petitioner by imposing certain conditions, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

Criminal petition is allowed . The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner on bail in S.C. No.344 of 2018 pending on the file of the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural at Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions:

¶36

i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶37

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶38

¶39

iii) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Court; and

¶40

iv) Petitioner shall appear before the trial Court without causing any delay.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

kvk

Girish v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish 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

Sri Denakaran M Vs State of Karnataka

Chandrashekar. v Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Murugeshan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Farooque Ahmed Khan Vs Senior Intelligence Officer

Sri Sanjay @ Sanju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mahendra @ Maggi Vs State of Karnataka