The High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case, noting the investigation was completed and further detention risked pre-trial punishment.
Petitioner enlarged on bail with Rs.2,00,000 bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions including non-escape from jurisdiction.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5990/2021
BETWEEN :
RAHUL KUMAR @ CHOTE LAL @ LAL S/O LATE BECHAN PRASAD AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT MALAMALIA GORAKPUR UTTAR PRADESH-273002
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI.KUMARA K.G: ADVOCATE)
AND :
STATE OF KARNATAKA BYDARAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560091 REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU-560001
… 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 S.C.NO.20/2021 (CR.NO.296/2020) OF BYADARAHALLI P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 201, 302 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
O R D E R
The petitioner-sole accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.296/2020 of Byadarahalli Police Station, 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-Bettaswamy.
3
03.10.2020, only on suspicion that the petitioner might have caused the death of the deceased. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. Still the cause of death of the deceased is not known. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. This petitioner is not required for further investigation. He is not having any criminal antecedents. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of 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.
4
painters and the petitioner was in constant touch with the wife of the deceased over phone. When this act of the petitioner was questioned by the deceased, he was done to death with the help of the gas cylinder. The petitioner is the native of Uttar Pradesh and therefore, if he is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of his abscondence. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he 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 ‘Affirmative’ for
the following:
R E A S O N S
that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for
5
having committed the offence which is punishable either with death or imprisonment of life. Even though there are no eye witnesses to speak about the incident, the prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence. There are prima-facie materials to connect the petitioner to the offence in question. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. However, admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. It is not the contention of the prosecution that petitioner is required for further investigation or that he is having any criminal antecedents. Only on the ground that the petitioner is permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh, he cannot be detained in custody indefinitely, as still the cause of death is awaited. Therefore, the detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court
6
Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.296/2020 of Byadarahalli 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:
7
d). The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission.
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.
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.
Sd/JUDGE
SKS/GVP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
Whether the petitioner can be detained in custody indefinitely given the completed investigation and awaited cause of death.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
RAHUL KUMAR @ CHOTE LAL @ LAL
STATE OF KARNATAKA
M.G. UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
