The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a bail petition filed by thepetitioner accused No.2. Upholding the prosecution case of conspiracy to cause death, the Court held that seriousness of IPC 302 charges precluded bail despite injury in lodging FIR.
The criminal petition for enlargement on bail was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4704 OF 2021
BETWEEN :
MANU, S/O LATE GOPALA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT #364, 3RD CROSS, OPP. TO HLRC, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 086.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.KRISHNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
STATE OF KARNATAKA, STATE BY VARTHUR P.S., REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.68/2021 (C.C.NO.8560/2021) OF VARTHUR P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201, 203 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.68/2021 of Varthur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 203 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informantGayithramma.
the petitioner and Sri. H. R. Showri, learned Counsel for the respondent - State. Perused the materials placed on record.
the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 12.03.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. The date of incident is 20.02.2021 but the complaint came to be lodged on 11.03.2021. There is inordinate delay in lodging the
complaint. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. As per PM report, the death was due to head injury sustained by the deceased. The petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. There is nothing to connect the petitioner to the offence in question. He is not having any criminal antecedents. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount pre-trial punishment. He 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.
was registered in UDR under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, it came to light that accused No.1 was having illicit relationship with accused No.2 and they criminally
conspired to cause the death of the deceased. Accordingly, on the date of incident, accused No.2 assaulted the deceased with rod on his head and caused his death. Thereafter, the body was shifted to bathroom to project as if he died due to fall. Thereafter, accused No.2 fled from the spot and the dead body was shifted to hospital. A false complaint was lodged by accused No.1. Thereafter, she tried to commit suicide. The informant is the mother of the deceased came to know about the offences committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and immediately, filed the complaint. The statement of CW.13 was recorded on 13.03.2021, wherein, there is reference to the extra judicial confession made by accused No.1. Therefore, it cannot be stated that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The incriminating materials such as iron rod, which was used in commission of offence and blood stained cloths were recovered at the instance of the present petitioner. This clinching material disclose that the petitioner along with accused No.1 is the author of the crime. 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.
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled
for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:
R E A S O N S
caused the death of the deceased. CW.13 in turn informed this fact to the informant, who is the mother of the deceased who filed the complaint on 11.03.2021. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. As per the postmortem report, the death of the deceased is due to shock and hemorrhage and as a result of head injury sustained. It is stated that blood stained cloth and iron road used in commission of offences were recovered at the instance of the present petitioner. All these materials, prima facie supports the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is the author of the crime along with accused No.1. The offences in question are punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Considering the nature and seriousness of the offences, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .
Sd/-
JUDGE
NR/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in case involving charges of murder?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MANU, S/O LATE GOPALA KRISHNA
STATE OF KARNATAKA
M.G. UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
