Allowed

Sri. Mahadevappa @ Manthri v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2021CRL.P/5232/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a criminal petition seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused in a murder case. Relying on the principle of parity, as other family accused were already on bail, the court granted bail subject to bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.227/2020 on obtaining bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties.

Sri. Mahadevappa @ Manthri Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5232 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI. MAHADEVAPPA @ MANTHRI S/O MAHADEVAPPA H.V. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/AT HONNEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE GUNDLUPET TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 111. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MAHESH M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GUNDLUPET POLICE STATION CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. … RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.227/2020 OF GUNDLUPETE POLICE STATION, CHAMARAJANAGAR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner - accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.227/2020 of Gundlupete Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant -Savitha.

¶18

Heard Sri. Mahesh M., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.S.Abhijith, learned Counsel for the respondent - State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 29.06.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Accused No.1 is father, accused No.2 is brother and accused No.3 is sister of the deceased. It is stated that there were dispute between the deceased and accused No.1 regarding partitioning the family properties. While the deceased was cutting the tree, accused Nos.1 to 3

¶20

¶21

have assaulted the deceased with deadly weapon and caused his death. Admittedly, accused Nos.1 to 3 are family members of the deceased. There is no recovery of incriminating materials at the instance of the present petitioner. Accused Nos.1 and 3, against whom the similar offences are made, are already enlarged on bail. Under such circumstances, the present petitioner is also entitled for bail, on the benefit of parity. Since the investigation is already completed, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. 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.

¶22

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. It is specifically stated that the present petitioner assaulted the deceased with machete and the deceased sustained multiple injuries, which has resulted in his death. The investigation is completed and the charge

¶23

¶24

sheet is filed. 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.

¶25

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶26

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶27

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the

¶28

following:

¶29

R E A S O N S

¶30

The materials on record disclose that serious allegations are made against all the accused including the present petitioner. It is specifically stated that since the deceased was cutting the tree, which was standing in the land which belongs to accused No.1, accused Nos.1 to 3 have assaulted the deceased with machete, club and axe, which has resulted in his death. Admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, the

¶31

¶32

detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pretrial punishment. It is not in dispute that accused Nos.1 and 3 against whom the similar allegations are made, have already been enlarged on bail. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the benefit of parity, subject to conditions which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶33

Accordingly, I answer the above point in

¶34

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petition is allowed.

¶37

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.227/2020 of Gundlupete Police Station on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with

¶38

two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶39

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶40

¶41

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶42

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶43

If in case, the petitioner violates any of these conditions, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶44

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

NR/-

Sri. Mahadevappa @ Manthri v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mahadevappa @ Manthri 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

Dinesh S Vs State of Karnataka by

Jagadish Vs State of Karnataka

Mukunda H H Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Haisha @ Rudresha B E Vs State of Karnataka

Chethan Naik Vs the State of Karnataka by

Ismail Zabiulla Vs the State of Karnataka