Allowed

Naveen Yadav v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Sept 2021CRL.P/540/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed the criminal petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by petitioner-accused No.3 in a murder conspiracy case, granting bail on the principle of parity with other co-accused already released and noting the lack of eyewitnesses.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail on bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions of not committing offences, tampering with witnesses, and appearing when required.

Naveen Yadav Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.540 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

NAVEEN YADAV S/O LATE SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/O RAYACHERAVU VILLAGE CHELURU HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.

¶9

….PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI: SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA YELAHANKA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

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

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.159/2019 (S.C.NO.130/2020) REGISTERED BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120(B), 341, 302 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.159/2019 of Yelahanka Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 341, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant N S Sudeep.

¶20

Heard Sri.Sirajuddin Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K S Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 26.09.2019 and since then, he is in

¶22

¶23

judicial custody. It is alleged that accused No.1 had leased his auto-rickshaw to the deceased on rental basis. The deceased had not paid rent to accused No.1 and therefore, accused No.1 was having motive to cause the death of the deceased. He criminally conspired with accused No.2, who in turn, called accused Nos.3 to 5 and thereafter, accused No.1 to 5 conspired together to eliminate the deceased. Accordingly, a new auto-rickshaw belonging to CW12 was taken by accused No.5, in which, accused No.1 armed with knife and accused No.2 armed with two long and chilly powder went to the spot. While accused No.1 was talking with the deceased, accused Nos.2 to 5 suddenly came to the spot and thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 5 caught hold of the deceased and accused No.1 thrown the chilly powder into the eyes of the deceased and stabbed his stomach with knife. Accused No.2 assaulted the deceased with long five to six times and accused No.4 assaulted with long repeatedly. Accused No.3 snatched the long from accused No.4 and assaulted the deceased three to four times. Even though such serious allegations are made,

¶24

¶25

there are no eye witnesses to the incident. The prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. Accused No.4 against whom similar allegations are made is already enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.561 of 2021 vide order dated 25.09.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of parity. His detention in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. He is not having any criminal antecedents. 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.

¶26

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The specific overt-act is alleged against the present petitioner that he assaulted the deceased three to four times with long and as a result of

¶27

¶28

the assault, the deceased died at the spot. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Considering the seriousness of offences, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

the following:

¶33

R E A S O N S

¶34

The materials placed on record disclose that serious allegations are made against the accused in general and the petitioner in particular for having committed the offences. It is not in dispute that initially the complaint was lodged against unknown persons.

¶35

¶36

During the course of investigation, the petitioner has been arrested on 26.09.2019 and since then, he is in judicial custody. It is alleged that the present petitioner snatched the long from accused No.4 and assaulted the deceased three to four times. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident in question. The case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. However, it is not the case of prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation or that he is having criminal antecedents. The over-act alleged against each of the accused in the commission of offences is required to be proved at the time of full fledged trial. The petitioner is in custody for more than 2 years. Accused N.4 against whom similar allegations are made is already enlarged on bail by this Court and accused No.5 is also enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court. Hence, on principle of parity, this petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject

¶37

¶38

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.

¶39

Accordingly, I answer the above point in ‘Affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The petition is allowed.

¶42

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in

¶43

Crime No.159/2019 of Yelahanka Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶44

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

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.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

*bgn/-

Naveen Yadav v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Yadav 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

Shabarish Vs State by Koratagere Police Station

T S Madhusudhan @ Madhu Vs State of Karnataka

Ansaf K B Vs the State of Karnataka

Prakash M Rao Vs State of Karnataka by

Babu H K @ Pulsar Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Lokesh @ Chiru Vs the State of Karnataka by