Allowed

Sri Muniyappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2021CRL.P/6171/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court enlarged the accused on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder conviction case, noting FSL report ambiguities regarding ammunition types, and imposed stringent conditions including attendance and non-association with crime.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in connection with Crime No.172/2019 subject to execution of bond of Rs.2,00,000 and stringent conditions of travel, attendance, and non-contact with witnesses.

Sri Muniyappa Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6171 OF 2020

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI MUNIYAPPA, S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT: SRIRAMPURA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562106. (BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JIGANI POLICE STATION, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, REPTD.BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU -560001.

¶8

RESPONDENT (BY SRI H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶9

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.172/2019 OF JIGANI P.S. BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 114, 302 R/W SECTION 34 AND SECTION 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 25 OF THE ARMS ACT.

¶10

: 2 :

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION PERTAINING TO PRINCIPAL BENCH, BENGALURU, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT DHARWAD, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Accused No.1 has again approached this court seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. On earlier occasion, his bail petition No.4008/2020 was dismissed on 05.10.2020 observing that there was no case for granting

¶14

bail and based on charge sheet materials. This time according to the petitioner, the FSL report makes out a changed circumstance.

¶15

Heard both sides.

¶16

The allegation against the petitioner is that he

¶17

shot dead person by name Ramesh at about 10.30 p.m. on 02.10.2019. On perusal of the FSL report, it can be said that it is not so clear as to the use of the cartridges. According to Sri Leeladhar H.P., from a 12-bore SBBL Gun, three types of cartridges can be fired. They are (i) Cherry, (ii) Boxid and (iii) Bullet. Though in the FSL

¶18

: 3 :

¶19

report, it is stated that article No.2 was fired from that gun, it does not indicate which of the three type was used for shooting the deceased dead. Anyway this is a matter of trial. The petitioner can take advantage of FSL report at this stage. It appears that he is not involved in any other criminal case; his presence can be secured for trial. Therefore subjecting him to stringent conditions, bail may be granted. Hence the following:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(a) Petition is allowed.

¶22

(b) Petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.172/2019 registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 114 and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.

¶23

The petitioner is subjected to the following conditions:

¶24

(i) He shall execute a bond for Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees two lakh only) and provide two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶25

(ii) He shall not threaten the witnesses and attempt to destroy the evidence.

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

(iii) He shall not get involved in any criminal case.

¶28

(iv) He shall mark his attendance every week, preferably on a Sunday between 9.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon till completion of trial.

¶29

(v) Violation of any of the above conditions will result in cancellation of bail.

¶30

SD/JUDGE

¶31

CLK

Sri Muniyappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Muniyappa 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

Mohammad Mansoor Khan Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Rakesh S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Gouse Peer @ Munna Vs State by

Sri Rahul Thonse Vs State of Karnataka

Khayum Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Gadigeppa S/O Shivappa Kori Vs Kumari Vindi D/O Shivappa Kori