In a bail petition challenging murder charges, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the application, holding that serious allegations and prima facie evidence precluded release.
The petition for bail was dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to apply again after material witnesses are examined.
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 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5205 OF 2021
BETWEEN :
Veerendra P.S, aged about 24 years, S/o Prahlada, Resident at: Annayappana Layout Attibele, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District-562 106.
…Petitioner
(By Sri. Praveen C, Advocate)
AND :
The State of Karnataka by Koratagere Police Station, Tumkuru District Represented by the S.P.P High Court Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
… Respondent
(By Sri. K.S.Abhijith, Advocate)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.28/2021 (Spl.C.No.5019/2021) registered by Koratagere Police Station, Tumakuru for
2
the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for orders, this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.28/2021 of Koratagere Police Station, pending in S.C.No.5019/2021 on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tumkuru, sitting at Madhugiri registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Sri. Ramesh R.
3
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is the sole accused. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 04.02.2021 since then he is in judicial custody. It is alleged that the petitioner had engaged the car belonging to the deceased to go to Tumakuru and caused the death of the deceased while traveling to Tumkuru and it is a murder for gain. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The weapon used for commission of offence is said to have been recovered at the instance of the present petitioner. The case of the prosecution rests only on the circumstantial evidence. As per the statements of CW.Nos.2, 3 & 4, who are said to have last seen the deceased in the company of the petitioner. Their statements were recorded after six days of the incident. Therefore, the same cannot be relied on.
4
The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. There is no motive to cause murder of the deceased, since he is unknown person to the petitioner. The petitioner 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.
5
witnesses have specifically stated this fact. The white shirt with blood stains was recovered at the instance of the present petitioner. Knife used to stab the deceased was recovered at the spot. Looking to the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.
“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
seen that serious allegations are made against the
6
petitioner for having committed the offences. Even though there are no eye witnesses, the prosecution has relied upon the statements of CWs.2, 3 & 4, who
are said to have last seen the deceased in the company of the petitioner. As per post mortem report, the cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of stab injury sustained. As per charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner was having motive to sell the car after causing the death of the deceased. The blood stained clothes is said to have been seized at the instance of the present petitioner. All these materials prima facie substantiate the contention of the prosecution. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Admittedly, now the case is pending in S.C.No.5091/2021 on the file of IV Additional District
& Sessions Judge, Tumkuru for hearing before charge.
7
The release of petitioner may deter the witnesses of deposing before the Court on behalf of the prosecution. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed .
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to file similar petition after examination of the material witnesses.
Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that CWS.1 to 4 are the material witnesses to be examined before the trial Court.
The petitioner is at liberty to file similar application seeking bail, after examination of these material witnesses.
Sd/JUDGE
AG
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Veerendra P.S
The State of Karnataka
M.G. UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
